Why Do We Have To Accept The Actions Of This Illigitimate Government?

[Tace]

When it's all over and done -- and Bushco is going down -- why must we accept all the bullshit that they have put in place?

Why should we accept ANY judge appointed at any level? How do we get them out?

Why should we accept ANY laws they rammed through Congress? How do we undo this travesty?

Why should we let any of these criminals walk free? How do we put them in prison for the rest of their lives?

Even when we vanquish these foes, how the hell do we undo all the damage? There's no precident for this. And, Frankly, I'll be damned if I'll accept any of it.

What will we do then?

[Lilyhoney]

1. I don't know.

But you ask some very good questions that I would love to have the answers to. If you find them please send me an email. Thanks.:shrug:

[FloridaPat]

2. Hopefully the Democrats will have some good lawyers that can answer

those questions. Hopefully not the same ones advising Gore on the 2000 election.

[Silverhair]

3. Because we are a nation of laws.

Face this fact - About half the nation is moderate to conservative. If you want to try the things that you are talking about, you have to win over those people. And for the past 25 years, they have been winning.

So - first you win the elections on a MASSIVE scale.

Then you can impeach the judges, revoke the laws, and pretty much do what you want to do.

If you don't win the elections on such a scale, then you have no choice but to accept the laws of the majority, or go to jail.

However, I suspect that you already knew that, and just wanted to rant and blow off steam.

[Tace]

4. Hey, You Set It Out Nicely

I'm of the camp that at least 2000, 2002 and 2004 were sham elections, at all levels.

I also believe that about 80% of this nation is opposed to Bushco, especially post-hurricane.

So, a fair ballot, with a fair counting, will bring that massive win.

We'll take it from there. You make it sound doable, which is reassuring.

Thanks and Cheers on this gloomy morn!

[shance]

5. Yes, and THEY are breaking our laws and stealing our elections.

They are by every single standard and ethic are illegitimate and without any authority to be engaging in any Executive privelege at any capacity. It is essentially a counterfeit Administration?

What else would you call two stolen elections?

You want to talk to US about laws?

Please, with all due respect, spare me.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Correction, please?

3 STOLEN ELECTIONS! 2000, 2002 midterm and 2004 :hi: The 2002 midterm was when Hagel used his ES&S evoting machines to steal his election and Max Cleland lost when the polls the night before the election, had him WAY ahead. Also, Wellstone was murdered and Coleman won his seat???? I don't think so! You can't tell me that the people who were going to vote for Wellstone actually voted for Norm Coleman instead. Not likely.

[Lexingtonian]

7. To begin with,

they're actually doing a pretty good job of annihilating most of what they've done.

Their executive 'accomplishments', i.e. military actions in Iraq, turn out to 'succeed' in the short term and fail over even moderate periods of time. They're just stupid that way.

Their legislative 'accomplishments' are such that they will have to sacrifice one of them after another as budget problems mount. They have to preserve their tax cuts, above all else, because that's the only thing the people who own them really care about.

As for their judges' jurisprudence, the fundamental game is that the Supreme Court can change doctrine and make a lot of bad or ideological judges irrelevant by setting precedents that forces the most biased verdicts to be overturned on appeal. Judges are internally reviewed and there are ways of forcing out the ones that are determined not to serve the interests of justice.

As for the miscellaneous kleptocrats and worse, they realize perfectly well that they lie, cheat, and steal only to the degree permitted by their superiors. Should Democrats take over, 99% will be heading for the exits. After that it's a question of how thoroughly to prosecute them- you don't want them enjoying the fruits of their abuses of the public trust too overtly, but on the other hand the American public did allow them to behave corruptly. Maybe letting them escape with a certain bunch of loot, backed with an ethics effort that keeps them on the run and far away rather than causing us more trouble with the business of the country, is in fact the cheapest and most effective way of being rid of them.

I mean, $1-$2 trillion seems like a lot of money. If, however, leaving them that amount of ill gotten gains means that a whole generation of major corporate CEOs and the whole Dallas Oil Mafia/Texas 'business establishment'- the whole culture of American corporate colonialism- is destroyed as social and political and economic force in the United States forever...maybe the country as a whole can consider that a brutal and involuntary, but ultimately desirable, bargain in which the benefits far exceed the costs.

[understandinglife]

8. You don't have to ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4867994&mesg_id=4867994


Peace.

[Beam Me Up]

9. Such optimism. I wish I shared it.

What makes you think they are "going down." Who, precisely, is going to bring them down? You are right in your observation that they are an illegitimate government, but they WERE put in place, and are being kept in place by the REAL rulers of this country. Even if the bush gang were gone, the infrastructure of the National Security State would still be in place, operating as it does on the same assumptions it has always operated on, which is, essentially, that Democracy is not to be trusted. It can be allowed to have a certain amount of room in certain areas of social reality but when it comes to National Security Policy, it is not trusted. It has been this way for quite some time. The Bush cabal are basically a bunch of Nazis -- and that isn't just colorful language. The interests they represent saw to the rise of Naziism in Germany but, ideologically, their focus is raw self-interest.