Sure BrainGlutton, it’s all good eating until someone gets scrapies. :dubious:
Sorry, I mistranscribed. I was poking fun at your “lol” and pasted from some other post. Apologies.
No, it won’t be obvious, at least to some Dopers.
Given the level of paranoia shown in this thread, I can almost guarantee that any terrorist attack will produce a flood of posts accusing Bush of engineering it for political advantage.
9/11 happened, and Bush and the country weren’t prepared for it. Therefore, Bush is a bad President.
Something on the same scale might happen, so Bush is trying to prepare for it. Therefore, Bush is a bad President.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Another data point:
Given the Bush Admin’s record to date, Shodan, I’m not sure such accusations would count as “paranoia.”
As noted, it’s a comment on his characters that such a charge can be so easily believed.
Actually, that’s one charge I don’t think I’ve seen anybody make about Bush, so I can only conclude that you are mistaken. I note that you ignore Bush’s lies about the war, his violationsof civil liberties, and his support for the FMA.
Publicly stating interest in delaying the elections is unprecedented in our history. If Bush were serious about preparation for a crisis, then he would raise taxes and give a hell of a lot more funds to Homeland Security. He wouldn’t leave our coastlines and borders undefended. He wouldn;t start wars that serve a s recruiting drives for our enemies. Bush is only serious about power, not about the safety of Americans.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I don’t doubt you are sincere. Just as I don’t doubt that many of those accusing Clinton of murder were also entirely sincere.
But it is still a crack pot notion.
To give many of you credit, I suspect this idea that Bush is secretly plotting a fascist takeover is not entirely seriously held. It is just a way of getting a secret thrill of being “on the inside”. It’s like spotting the plot twist long before the screen writer wanted you to. Or maybe like getting involved in “Dungeons and Dragons”, and the delicious feel of living in a world that is far more dramatic and exciting than the real one.
But it is also like D&D in that some of you are taking it waaaaaay too seriously.
Solidarity is one thing. Groupthink is taking it a bit too far.
Regards,
Shodan
If you’re getting scrapies, then you’re doing it wrong.
You should be wearing kneepads, for starters. 
What fascist takeover plot? The only concern I have at all is if the postponement is manipulated in such a way as to give Bush an advantage. You’ll note I stated quite clearly what concerned me about HSA’s response. It was quite easy to construe that their concern is a terrorist attack affecting HOW people vote, not whether they can or not. They used Spain as an example. The terrorist attack in Spain had zero effect on whether people were able to vote or not on election day. It might have had an effect (and I believe even you think it did) on HOW people voted. Postponing elections because the roads throughout the U.S. have huge craters in them is fine (within reason). Postponing them because people are a bit pissed at the current administration, exacerbated by a recent attack, is not.
There is no fear from me of Bush setting up a dictatorship for life. There is plenty of fear, and it seems justified, of doing everything in his power to extend his presidency another four years, as long as he has the tools at his disposal.
Are you seriously going to argue that most politicians (of any ilk) won’t do everything in their power to swing things their way, when you give them the tools to do so? Hell, want to talk about redistricting? We could have fun with this.
Christ, how less sincere can you be?
For a little fun, let’s see just how many logical fallacies and personal attacks Shodan has packed into one post, because I think he may be close to establishing a record for the thread.
Ad Hominem, insinuating only a crackpot could make this claim,
strawman, inventing a motive,
strawman, overstating our earnestness in making a claim, and then dismissing it,
and the best one yet:
Accusing the opponent of one’s own fault.
I don’t know what this is even called. It’s more of a falsehood than a fallacy, really, because it is so strategically potent. It simultaneously distracts attention away from one’s own offense, puts the opponent on the defensive, and reduces any accusations from the opponent to sounding unoriginal and retaliatory, no matter how accurate.
I’m gonna go with Relativist Fallacy. Or maybe even coin Relativist Hypocracy, to draw a distinction with the existing term.
I’ve also noticed lately that it is a tried and true fanatic’s tactic, made extremely popular in conservative culture in the late 1990’s by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. It’s a sure sign of fanaticism in action.
Hmm… Only four, I guess.
Gee, Shodan, you need to try harder.
Apparently the Admin is now denying it is even considering postponing the elections:
http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGB7ZA8JLWD.html
Which is a relief . . . for now . . .
Shodan, I really, sincerely believe that Bush, Cheney and Co. are morally capable of committing an act of high treason, up to and including the arranging or staging of a “terrorist” attack on American soil, in order to hold on to power. I am not suggesting they have done anything like this, yet, nor that they are plotting it. But I wouldn’t put it past them for a minute. Would you? I’m not really worried, because I don’t believe for a moment they could pull it off without getting caught. How could they? My only worry is that the desperate fools might not realize that, or might not care, and go ahead with it – not to perpetrate a “fascist takeover,” but just to win a second term in the White House.
So I repeat: If a “terrorist” attack did fortuitously happen just before the election, to the apparent benefit of Bush’s electoral prospects, it would not be “paranoid” to suspect the Admin of arranging it. In fact, that would be the first place we should look.
And if a terror attack helped Kerry, would an investigation of Kerry be “the first place we should look”?
No, because:
-
Bush is in a position to arrange a “terror” attack. Kerry is not.
-
We have no reason, as yet, to doubt that Kerry has something resembling a conscience. We have no reason, as yet, to believe Bush does.
Kerry has personal access to about $1B. That should be sufficient.
How silly of me to have overlooked this fact. :rolleyes:
The CIA has clarified what sort of threat we’re talking about:
CIA Chief Tells AP Osama Aware of Plots
This seems an odd thing for the director to say. Wouldn’t national security concerns normally preclude this sort of information-rich leakage?
Could he be trying to keep the admin’s election postponment plan alive in the face of wide derision?
All he’s saying is that, if there is a plot afoot, Osama probably knows about it. What’s “information-rich” about that?
If he had revealed the names of those other “operatives believed involved in the plot,” that would have been information-rich – but, come to think of it, probably the best way to thwart any plot, if plot there is. I mean, then a lot of people other than the CIA would be looking for those operatives, and how could they get away with anything?
Fact it is, John, roll your eyes all you like.
He’s just told everyone that we’ve got a line on “operatives believed involved in the plot,” and that those operatives are “closely associated with” bin Laden.
Is there some reason it’s to our advantage to tell bin Laden that he’s got a serious hole in his security? I can’t think of one.
How do I look in my tinfoil hat?
From Reuters, November Elections Won’t Be Delayed, Official Says:
[Emphasis added.]
You don’t need to cancel or suspend an election to throw it into a state’s legislature. Suppose I live in, to pick a state at random, Florida and the popular vote there favors one candidate. Then whoomp, terrorist attack (or red-alert threat), and the ballot is declared irretrievably disrupted. Luckily the State Legislature is there to provide electors by legal, constitutional means. Of course, that legislature may happen to favor the other candidate.
I fully expect to be wrong about this. But it’s worth reading news reports between the lines.
Well, someone led the United States to invade Iraq on trumped-up pretenses of an imminent WMD threat, and it sure as hell ain’t John Kerry.
If lying to start a war isn’t proof of a lack of a conscience, I don’t know what is.