US - "A Coup Has Taken Place"

[dilute micro]

I felt that your comments that people you disagreed with should ‘go off and study history’ were intellectually dishonest because it was just trying to win the argument by attacking the person who made a statement rather than addressing the statement itself. I’m tempted to say you should go off and study logic and botany before you reply to any posts on urban.

What countries and periods of history have you made a study of, by the way?

No I actually mean it. Where we are today is because of our history. If you don't know your history you don't know where you are and so forth. That's true for everybody in all aspects of their lives.

 

[two sheds]

Two sheds you're missing the point. I'm talking about the ones who know nothing at all about politics - don't even care to - never even read a paper or watch CNN - but still are adamantly one sided and in this case in the democrat camp. My sister is one. Her method of reasoning is just that - whatever sounds conservative is wrong and stupid. And the proof there is if a stupid republican supports it. But the 'stupid' theme has unquestionably caught on with the left in recent years and especially, I've found, amongst the least knowledgeable which is why kids are prone to it. It's one thing to say someone is stupid for making that decision and another to say because that person is stupid they made that decision.

Here you're only taking for granted that they're stupid, and then use them as positive evidence that they're stupid. A person can be intelligent but still screw things up for a number of reasons.


Open your mind two sheds. A person doesn't have to be a member of a party. What party do I support? - none. I'll agree with them on things.

Fair do's, there may be this group of people who do that - I'm not in the US so I don't know. You have to admit, though, your sister has a bloody good point. With the republicans' history it's a fair assumption that anything they come up with is going to be 'more of the same'.

No, I'm not a member of a party either, but if I were to go round after the next election saying 'the only reason the Labour party was voted out was because they didn't get their vision across to the population' i'd forgive people for assuming i was

 

[two sheds]

No I actually mean it. Where we are today is because of our history. If you don't know your history you don't know where you are and so forth. That's true for everybody in all aspects of their lives.

I agree totally (although it depends on who's written the history you're reading). But dismissing someone's argument by saying 'they need to go off and read history' is such a general criticism as to be dismissive and useless. If you're going to criticise along those lines you need to say something like 'they need to go off and read why the US ditched the gold standard' or even better tell us *why* you think what someone said is wrong.

What countries and periods of history have you made a study of, then?

 

[dilute micro]

Fair do's, there may be this group of people who do that - I'm not in the US so I don't know. You have to admit, though, your sister has a bloody good point. With the republicans' history it's a fair assumption that anything they come up with is going to be 'more of the same'.

No, I'm not a member of a party either, but if I were to go round after the next election saying 'the only reason the Labour party was voted out was because they didn't get their vision across to the population' i'd forgive people for assuming i was

No my sister doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. I don't talk politics with her because she knows better. With her being so ignorant I could have her defending Bush without her knowing it.

 

[two sheds]

Nah, the president can be in charge of the National Guard while on US soil.

Have you a link for that? From http://www.answers.com/topic/militia-and-national-guard it says

"Over the next five years, Congress increased federal aid to the states and granted the National Guard a limited reserve role in the Militia Act of 1903."

That would indeed suggest Congress was indeed in the chain of command of the National Guard? When did it change?

 

[two sheds]

No my sister doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. I don't talk politics with her because she knows better. With her being so ignorant I could have her defending Bush without her knowing it.

Fair point.

What countries and periods of history have you made a study of?

 

[dilute micro]

I agree totally (although it depends on who's written the history you're reading). But dismissing someone's argument by saying 'they need to go off and read history' is such a general criticism as to be dismissive and useless. If you're going to criticise along those lines you need to say something like 'they need to go off and read why the US ditched the gold standard' or even better tell us *why* you think what someone said is wrong.

What countries and periods of history have you made a study of, then?

I've found that it's useless to think people want to engage in history discussions. They don't. Even "historians" don't. I'm an early American history addict.

 

[Jonti]

Nice to get some more info on this development.

Here's an earlier thread.

The move must have been some time in the planning, but the news was slipped out while attention was on Bush's pending Important Speech to the Nation on Saving the Economy. Everyone seemed to think he'd announce something crazy and dangerous. I suggested he might invade Canada. But nobody thought he'd go so far as to invade the USA!

 

[two sheds]

I've found that it's useless to think people want to engage in history discussions. They don't. Even "historians" don't. I'm an early American history addict.

Yes, but if there's a specific point you disagree on with someone, then backing it up with a little bit of detail would be a bit handy. In my last but one post, for example, I showed that i'm keen to engage in a little history discussion, and i'm not even a 'historian'

Shouldn't you broaden your perspective a bit? Just American history seems a bit parochial. Where we are today is because of our history, you know. If you don't know your history you don't know where you are and so forth. That's true for everybody in all aspects of their lives.

I understand it's viewed as polite to at least get interested in the history of countries you've invaded, for example. Mind you, I can talk coming from the UK.

 

[dilute micro]

Yes, but if there's a specific point you disagree on with someone, then backing it up with a little bit of detail would be a bit handy. In my last but one post, for example, I showed that i'm keen to engage in a little history discussion, and i'm not even a 'historian'

Shouldn't you broaden your perspective a bit? Just American history seems a bit parochial. Where we are today is because of our history, you know. If you don't know your history you don't know where you are and so forth. That's true for everybody in all aspects of their lives.

I understand it's viewed as polite to at least get interested in the history of countries you've invaded, for example. Mind you, I can talk coming from the UK.

All I'm saying is it's the only one I go into any depth with. I don't think it's always necessary to go into detail. Sometimes going on and on just doesn't matter. I don't have to prove myself and I don't mean that to sound wrong.

 

[clusterflux]

It's good versus evil like in the movies.

If you look at both Bush presidencies, they are like movies, with the sequel surpassing the original.
Bush 1 had an invasion of Iraq, though preceded by warm relations with some Rumsfeld character visiting Hussein weeks before he invaded Kuwait (he has said he thought Rumsfeld wanted him to invade). Bush 1 also had a large hurricane hit the U.S. with large scale human suffering when the government did nothing for three days. Bush 1 did have a financial implosion, though it was smaller.
Bush 2 was grander in scale. Bush 2 had an invasion of Iraq because of WMD, which had been destroyed in part 1, but everyone forgot, except the soldiers who got sick from burning them in pits. Movies do this all the time. Bush 2 had a hurricane hit a major U.S city and the special effects were way better. Again nothing was done, only this time ten times more people died because the entire city was flooded. In Bush 2 there was some questions asked about how this could happen, but the title character brushed them off and even said he thought the director of fema did a heck of a job. Bush 2 also had a financial meltdown on a much larger scale.
The Bush family are actually a banking family from the northeast. The grandfather was formally reprimanded by the legislative branch of the U.S. Gov. for giving bank loans to Germany for purchasing steel during WWII. His son then moved to Texas and named one of his sons Jeb. George #2 was also a member of skull and bones of Yale, like his father. They are said to collect skulls (the elder Bush is said to have found Geronimos skull, which may be a joke). There is film of a skull and bones ritual which was essentially a mock sacrifice of a young girl. People who study Satanism will recognize the practice of sacrifice and collecting bones, especially skulls.

 

[two sheds]

All I'm saying is it's the only one I go into any depth with. I don't think it's always necessary to go into detail. Sometimes going on and on just doesn't matter. I don't have to prove myself and I don't mean that to sound wrong.

OK, well you were the one who came on the thread saying Wolf was mistaken - and possibly lying - from specialist knowledge that you have and how she should 'go off and study history'.

You make bald and general statements and when someone asks for clarification (I don't know about the American chain of command - it was just something I found on a cursory search) you go off all huffy.

Seems to me that you're against Wolf simply for 'being to the left and being against her'. Perhaps you shouldn't despise your sister's intellect so much, you seem to use similar reasoning. You're not a republican by chance, are you?

 

[dilute micro]

OK, well you were the one who came on the thread saying Wolf was mistaken - and possibly lying - from specialist knowledge that you have and how she should 'go off and study history'.

You make bald and general statements and when someone asks for clarification (I don't know about the American chain of command - it was just something I found on a cursory search) you go off all huffy.

Seems to me that you're against Wolf simply for 'being to the left and being against her'. Perhaps you shouldn't despise your sister's intellect so much, you seem to use similar reasoning. You're not a republican by chance, are you?

She is mistaken. We've been over this. I'm not going off. You seem to want me to go into deeper detail but I don't always feel the need. Then you googled up something on congressional legislation and think that makes them part of the chain of command. That's not the chain of command. Thank goodness they aren't btw. And yes the guard can come under federal control which means they are under the president the same as all other active units.

National Guard and National Guard Bureau: Federal and State Military Integration

The National Guard is the organized militia reserved to the states by the Constitution. In peacetime, the National Guard is commanded by the governor of each respective state or territory. When ordered to federal active duty for mobilization or for emergencies, units of the National Guard are under the control of the appropriate service secretary. Generally, there are two levels of coordination between FEMA and the National Guard. FEMA coordination with the National Guard at the state level routinely takes place between FEMA Regional staff and state officials. 14 of The Adjutant Generals (TAG), the leadership of the National Guard are also State Emergency Management Officials (SEMOs). http://www.fema.gov/media/archives/2007/061207.shtm

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/reservecallup.htm

The National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[4]

With the consent of state governors, members or units of state National Guard may be appointed to be federally recognized armed force members in active or inactive service [5][6][7]. If so recognized, they become part of the National Guard of the United States [1]. The National Guard of the United States units or members may be called up for federal active duty in times of Congressionally sanctioned war or national emergency [4]. State National Guard may also be called up for federal service, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any its states or territories are invaded or is in danger.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard#cite_note-Call_up-3

 

[two sheds]

ta that's what we call 'discussion' - we can now if we want to go off and check whether what you've said adds up.

 

[dilute micro]

ta that's what we call 'discussion' - we can now if we want to go off and check whether what you've said adds up.

Go ahead.

And I'm going to hopefully watch Notre Dame beat Carolina like the bitches they are.

 

[toblerone3]

Sorry to bump an old thread but what did happen as a result of this coup in the end?

 

[DotCommunist]

Sorry to bump an old thread but what did happen as a result of this coup in the end?

Obama was elected, thus ushering in The End Of Days

 

[camouflage]

Seems not much. As in General Smedley Butlers day, they prove unnessesary in the US.

 

[Dillinger4]

REX 84. There is a long history of this stretching right back to Roosevelt.

 

[Dillinger4]

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/okla/thoreen24.htm

"[nobody thought it was peculiar anymore, no more than the routine violations of constitutional rights these characters performed week after week, now absorbed into the vernacular of American expectations."

The link is an essay called 'THE PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY WAR POWERS AND THE EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES IN PYNCHON'S VINELAND' from Oklahoma City University Law Review Volume 24, Number 3 (1999).

The quote is from Vineland itself.

All worth a read.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Rex 84 is an interesting piece of legislation. It could have been applied to a number of hypothetic scenarios, but if it were to be inacted, the financial meltdown is a stick on favourite.

 

[TomPaine]

Well as the thread about Mexico suggests, legislation like this could be used to stems a flow of refugees over the border, should the corrupt Mexican government collapse as a result of the financial turmoil.

 

[liquidlunch]

I dont think i will be holidaying in mexico anytime soon.
Obama has stepped into the breach at the worst time tbf,still the right man for the job though.The old days are gone.

 

[fela fan]

I dont think i will be holidaying in mexico anytime soon.
Obama has stepped into the breach at the worst time tbf,still the right man for the job though.The old days are gone.

The right man for what job? Or do you mean the right puppet for the job?

Obama is a patsy, a dangerous one. Under the guise of the 'good man' he will most likely accelerate the agenda of those pulling the strings in that country. The people are in for a rough ride.

 

[davekriss]

The right man for what job? Or do you mean the right puppet for the job?

Obama is a patsy, a dangerous one. Under the guise of the 'good man' he will most likely accelerate the agenda of those pulling the strings in that country. The people are in for a rough ride.

No fela, Obama is the real deal. He is pulling the nation left, a nation that was pulled far right by the preceding 4 Presidents and the near monopolized mainstream press (I thank the stars for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow -- especially Rach!).

Given the cultural, fiscal, motivational, economic, values damage done by 8 years of dismal misrule by the worst pResident in U.S. history, one who rose to office via a bloodless coup on 12 December 2000 and then planted the machinery -- election fraud, caging, under-equipping Democratic districts so it takes 11 hours to vote while over-equipping Republican districts so it take 15 minutes, and of course outright vote flipping, as well as in all likelihood illegally eavesdropping on political opponents -- to steal the 2004 election; after 28 years of media concentrating in the hands of right wing moguls spewing forth their daily sludge about how Liberalism is bad and cutting taxes will heal the sick, feed the hungry, and bring happiness to everyman; after stacking the courts with Federalist Society ideologues; after stacking regulatory agencies with anti-regulatory frontmen recruited from the very industries they were purportedly going to regulate -- after all the propaganda, the theft, the death, the loss of treasure, Obama, with chain gripped in teeth and sweat on brow, piercing eyes riveted on the utopia ahead, is like a strong man pulling a locomotive to the left one small step at a time. The train moves, albeit slowly.

My only concern (and it is a big concern) is that Obama's too enamored with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, a main academic proponent in what is know as the Washington Consensus. On this matter, this is not "change I can believe in". He really should jettison Sumners and Giertner. The latter two will bailout the bankers without effective "strings attached" (and thereby continue the modus operandi of our past gangsta governments that socialize losses across the many while concentrating benefits amongst the few). They'll also dismantle Social Security as we know it, turn it into a minor welfare system leaving gaping holes in our social safety net -- despite the fact that the U.S. citizen will have paid $2 trillion in extra taxes to fund the coming funds inflow shortfalls (instead the $2 trillion will have been stolen, in effect, to pay for the borrowing frenzy of the Bush years and the resulting hangover of economic malaise that will be its direct result -- we're facing an "L" shaped deep recession: we go down, and stay down for a long time).

Obama is the real deal. He speaks careful but challenging truth in the chambers of Congress and to the American people. He has real potential to get something done. He has my full support and admiration. I thought tonight, at the non-SOTU State Of The Union address I heard one of the most riveting speeches of my lifetime. The coming attacks from the right will be brutal, and he very definitely better not fly in small airplanes, but I think Obama has captured the vast middle that's necessary for any President to be effective.

The Republicans, on the other hand, look lost, deluded, and dazed (Jindal was a complete asshole) and clearly offer nothing to the conscious American people.

While times are hard, I genuinely think I see a glimmer of blue sky up ahead.