considering what's at stake,

[laruemtt]

could you justify - or support - a plot to wrest power back from the cabal using force of some sort - not violence, but some type of well-planned coup? i don't know what it would be exactly, but our not wanting to "sink to their level" is not working. we can't stop a tidal wave with protests. hoping logic or a call to their "higher selves" will resonate with the 'murkan flatliners is not working and time is critical. i'm sick of assuming they have the upper hand in everything and we're playing catch-up, trying to catch them in their wrongdoing and waiting for an outpouring of outrage that's just not gonna happen. we're smarter. we might have to sink to something a little diabolical - though not violent or evil - to protect us all from what's ahead if we don't. but they've got the momentum now since they're in the middle of their well-planned plot. i feel like we're running around putting bandaids on all the cuts they're giving us while waiting for the next cut to come. can we change the paradigm here?

[mmonk]

1. If we had a free press again,

this crap could end.

[laruemtt]

3. but we don't.

and evidently we can't shame them into doing their jobs.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. No, I personally could not

unless there was some drastic action on "their" part to secure power, such as declaring martial law, Bush staying in office past his limits, etc. Then I can accept that this is not business as usual but uglier.

I feel all of our energy should be put into securing the vote. We need trust at the ballot box. That's where the uprising should be, that is the issue that should bring us to the streets. We are a "democracy" without a secure, trustworthy voting process. Oxymoron.

Let's have a huge vote march! I'll bring sandwiches and deviled eggs.

[laruemtt]

5. i agree we need trust at the ballot box,

but we don't have it and how many more "elections" are we going to give away to the thieves and let them progress with their plans before we step in and stop them? i'm not talking violence. maybe it's as simple as getting the power back in our own minds and ACTING like we are in charge - not them. it seems to have worked for them. they're fools and they're being followed as though they were gods. of course, our 'leaders' would have to act powerfully as though they were in charge - loudly and aggressively.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I'm basically a scared goose

kinda person and never advocate hitting the street, but I WOULD for election validity. I'd strike, march, stop paying taxes, etc. If anyone comes up with an initiative with some cajones, I'll be there.

[pretzel4gore]

4. a 'national hunger strike'....

yasee, the 'war' we are in with the globalist monkeyfarts is all about information, and one surefire way to engineer a move that the busheviks and their 'conga line of sukkholes' ie the pigmedia cannot counteract is if MILLIONS of americans (and their international supporters) threaten a hunger strike UNLESS PAPER BALLOTS ARE USED in all elections, and citizens watch the counting of votes etc....such a scheme, while impossibly unweildy, put the issue squarely on the 'good versus evil' plane the busheviks love to monopolize: and while pigmedia will pooh pooh the strike, when MILLIONS join in the threat to strike, including a few famous people, then....well, it's at least something :)

[laruemtt]

6. if we lived in a halfway

spiritual society, it might get attention. i'm afraid all it would do here is get them laughing at us while we die of starvation.

[pretzel4gore]

10. hahaha! im laffing already!

how corrupt is our culture? that is the question...if a 'national hunger strike' is taken up by a couple million people only, then as death approached the strikers, they can see there's nothing worth fighting for! voila, the strikers do a geebush and eat whatever's handy! klol

[Burning Water]

8. I don't know, but

it seems to me that a "coup of some kind" would necessarily involve violence, or the threat thereof. What do you think would work? How are you going to avoid getting shot or arrested by the Marines or Secret Service?

First, we might try the tidal wave of protests. A few here and there is not a "tidal wave". To be a tidal wave, it would have to be in numerous cities, on a daily basis.

I think we should give 2006 a chance. One word of advice to my fellow DUers, or in fact, anybody who wants to win an election. Calling people stupid, and patronizing them by calling them "'murkans" is not the way to get them to pay attention to your arguments, let alone vote for you.

2006 is the key. If we fail there, then 2008 is the key. Bush will leave office, exactly on schedule. But that doesn't mean we can't have another Repuke take office if we fail to do the work and win the votes. Oh, and make sure we have honest elections.

I actually think that last will resonate with the American people. Not the endless cry that 2000, 2002, & 2004 were stolen. If that hasn't created a firestorm by now, it never will. But programs to eliminate or minimize most types of fraud might. At least if approached properly, and as a bipartisan thing. That might be tricky, but I see it as doable.

Anyway, coup, no. Elections, yes. Clark for President!! (Although I am open to persuasion to any candidate except Kerry, Gore, or Hillary)

[laruemtt]

9. why not gore? :=)

gore, clark, feingold, conyers. believe me, i didn't used to hold a lot of americans in such low esteem, but how else can you see them after 2004 and still all this rah rah war crap?

protests? yeah, they really listened when millions of us around the world protested before the iraq invasion, didn't they? what would be different now? would the press cover us any more now than they did then?

i hope you're right about 2006 and i'll do all i can to make it work. BUT i can't believe they would have come as far as they have without a plan to reach their ultimate goal. THAT'S what scares me.

[Burning Water]

11. He had his chance.

He lost. Maybe not his fault, but there it is. Time to give new ideas a chance.

[laruemtt]

12. no. gore WON. remember?

he had the new ideas back in the 80s that they're plagiarizing now as theirs.

[Burning Water]

16. No, what I remember

is that President Bush was inaugurated and now sits in the WH. That's my definition of "winning".

You know, I've been developing a theory about Democratic electoral success, or lack thereof recently. They take their eyes off the ball. They get so concerned with being "right" that they waste a lot of energy, even monetary resources, that could have been spent in running a successful campaign.

I used to do that with football, when I still watched football. "God, if only Jones hadn't slipped. He had a clear 40 yards right into the end zone." "God, just a half inch to the right on that field goal attempt." But at the end of all my misery, the score still stood, and the bad guys had won.

Same with politics. I think we've spent so much time agonizing over 2000 , and it was agonizing, that we failed to do the work needed for 2002, and 2004. We were so intent on getting Bush that we forgot that the goal should have been winning the election. There is a subtle, but very real, distinction.

It's emotionally satisfying to fantasize about how we will bring Bush down, haul him and Cheney and Rumsfeld to the Hague, etc. But doing so is not as important as winning the elections. In fact, without doing that, we can't take effective steps towards our fantasies.

We spent our time moaning, not working for victory. And that includes working on election fraud. That makes us fans in stands, not players on the field. I want to be a player, if only on the bench come game day.

OK, that's my rant.:) I still think the Dems need a new face for 2008. So far, I'm leaning to wards Clark.

[Kierkegaard]

14. A coup doesn't have to involve violence toward people.

Maybe it's as simple as organizing a task force to destroy electronic voting machines. Involves a bunch of civil disobedience, and probably charges of destruction of property, but securing the vote is the easiest way to begin turning this mess around. If we can have fair elections, we will make gains.

[Burning Water]

17. You didn't qualify

the violence as "toward people". OK, go for it.

Remember, though, felons lose their right to vote. Vandals can spend some considerable time in jail. Any is too much. And you might be charged with something like "interfering with an election", I don't know exactly what it would be called. But suppose these high tech, ultra modern voting machines were in a poor, black precinct. Maybe you would face civil rights violation charges, or hate crime charges. These could be Federal offenses.

I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying the possible consequences should be considered. A calm, rational decision should be made as to what are the chances they would happen, and whether you would be willing to pay the price if things turned out that way.

Good luck.:)

[Kierkegaard]

20. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs

or be content to pick shells out of your teeth.

[Burning Water]

21. Very true.

Go for it. Only be careful which eggs get broken. Good luck

[stillcool]

15. Elections in this country ...

are no longer free or fair. The 'Help America Vote Act' has seen to that, by requiring the uniformity of computerized voting. If you wish to remain 'quiet' about the previous 'stolen elections', you are in effect describing the definition of insanity..."doing the same thing, and expecting different results" ...and the daily protests you prescibe will be like a tree falling in the forrest....not seen, and not heard, except by those present. I don't know what the solution is, but I fear it comes from the outside, rather than the inside.

[Burning Water]

18. You have less

faith than I do in the American people. And I do not prescribe total silence on the 2000 election. What I do prescribe is, after it failed to grip with the public, we should have moved on to other, more immediate issues, only bringing it back up when it had a chance of being effective and changing a few minds. OK, if that sounds like a RW "talking point", so be it. It's my opinion of what would have worked for the Dems better, because look at the facts on the ground: How much actual progress have we made??

To give you an example of what I think would have been more effective: Why did some many Dems vote to authorize Bush to take military action? Why didn't they vote their conscience? Possibly it was because an election was coming up and their careers were at stake. I think it would have been better to stand on principle. Maybe they were right, and they would have lost. But they would be remembered as men who would sacrifice for the common good. As the war turned sour, they could have staged a comeback, running on principle. People like a man with the balls to do what's right.

Instead, they are constantly having to explain their votes. The RW will never vote for them, and the independent will say, "I like what he's saying, but will he stick by it when the going gets tough?"

Nowadays, with videotape, and cable news, and hate radio, no man's past actions can be buried and conveniently forgotten. So the best thing, IMO, is to stand on principle at all times and to hell with the consequences. Think long term, not short term.

That's one reason I like Clark, I think he's a long term kind of guy.

[stillcool]

19. Faith....has nothing to do with it...

history is what has impacted my opinion....
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html#rrt
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairban/Pages/Grace.htm

[bryant69]

13. I cannot. Because i do not believe that the sort of people

willing to do a coup - including you, would be any better than Bush. Maybe you would be, but history doesn't support that supposition.

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