How Bad Will It REALLY Get In The Next 4 Years?

[Dinger]

I know there are things that we think will PROBABLY happen, but specifically, what do you think has the best chance of actually happening under the terrorist king?


1. The draft
2. Statewide unverifiable voting in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
New Mexico, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky,
and Ohio *Georgia already has it, and look what
happened there in 2002.
3. War with Iran and North Korea
4. 5,000 + more American soldiers will die in Iraq
5. Scalia will become "supreme" court chief justice
6. * will appoint 2 more to the SCOTUS (dems will bend over
and take it, while smiling)
7. Bin Laden won't be found, but will re-emerge with more
power than ever.

[GOPBasher]

1. 1, 2, 4, and 6 will probably happen, and I'll add another...

total bankruptcy of the United States treasury.

[demnan]

2. That and

Abortion will become defacto illegal. The "protection of the sanctity of marriage" will also pass.

And the 2-term limit for President's will be rescinded.

[Dinger]

3. You Really Think The2-Term Limit Is In Jeopardy?

Wow, that's scary!

[trezic]

5. It should be tossed

It removes any vestige of accountability during a 2d term.

[trezic]

4. Chief Justice

Scalia as CJ would not be as bad as most think. Two reasons:

1. In 2000, Scalia remarked that while all laws passed by Congress carry a presumption of constitutionality, it seemed that Congress had quit doing their own constitutional analysis. He further said that if the trend continues, the presumption may have to be abandoned. This is after 6 years of a GOP Congress.

2. Scalia is very respectful of precedent. He is not an Earl Warren to be sure, but he's not a radical. He was one of the votes to overturn the federal sentencing guidelines. In fact, he was one of four who wanted to remove them completely. It was a Clinton appointee, Ginsberg, who sought the goofy half measure to make them 'discretionary.'

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Might I also add:

Scalia is much older than Clarence Thomas, meaning we'll be stuck with him for far less.

[tom_paine]

13. Yes, but a man delusional or evil enough to say that the Nazis had strict

seperation of Church and State to a roomful of Jews is in the end dangerously unhinged or ruthlessly Orwellian.

Considering the EXACT OPPOSITE is the verifiable, historic truth.

Your #2, I am sorry to say, is a bad joke. Is it just me or is Bush v Gore the only "Supreme Court" decision EVER to carry with it the stipulation that it NOT set precedent with the decision

Did I mention that's the only time EVER that happened?

Finally, the depth of the corruption of Scalia, evidenced not only in his not recusing himself during Bush v. Gore or his membership in that Stalinst-style Party Front Group, the Federalist Society or his overturning the Fairness Docrtine that paved the way for Imperial Totalitarian Amerikan State-Run (essentially, but in a Free Market fashion, of course) Uniform Media, for which he coincidentally got named as Imperial High Judge shortly thereafter, is deeply disturbing.

No, a moraslly bereft corrupt and Orwellian Party-Loyal Revisionist would probably be as good a choice as in other nations that have used corruption and Party Loyalty as "litmus tests".

Like Nazi Germany, Commie China, the Soviet Union, and Ferdinand Marcos' Phillipines, which would seem to me to be a very analogous Third World Country to the Modern Imperial Amerika, which is now the wealthiest Third World Country on Earth.

[trezic]

16. Um yeah

Christian churches were virtually hounded out of existence by the Nazis unless they tossed Christianity and adopted Himmler's neo-Pagan Aryan mythology. Hitler himself referenced God on numerous occasions, but he was not terribly interested in unifying existing churches with the state. Even a cursory study of the SS would reveal this truth.

I don't know if Bush v. Gore is the only non-controlling decision by the Supreme Court, but this type of decision is not uncommon at all. There's an adage: Hard cases make bad law. There are some cases that courts are willing to decide, but only within the parameters of the individual case. I didn't agree with the Court taking that particular case, but the reason to make it non-controlling was obvious. They don't want to get involved in political disputes like that.

Why Scalia should have recused himself in Bush v. Gore is beyond me. Neither man appointed him. Anyway, it's up to each justice to decide his/her own necessity of recusal. Some are very strict, some not so strict. Forced recusal would be a betrayal of judicial independence.

The Federalist Society as corrupt? Go meet some of the members before making a judgment that seems based on secondhand information.

If Scalia is a party loyalist, why did he vote to overturn the federal sentencing guidelines? It strikes me that voting against them, in entirety, is a slap in the face to 'law and order' conservatives.

I'm not interested in personal attacks, so don't take this as one. You display a real ignorance of the law and how it works. My advice is to learn.

[hatrack]

20. Fundamental errors in your statement

"Christian churches were virtually hounded out of existence by the Nazis unless they tossed Christianity and adopted Himmler's neo-Pagan Aryan mythology. Hitler himself referenced God on numerous occasions, but he was not terribly interested in unifying existing churches with the state. Even a cursory study of the SS would reveal this truth."

Not even close. The Catholic Church in Nazi Germany retained its fundamental nature, as did Lutheran and other Protestant denominations.

In talks between Franz von Papen and Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII), then serving as Cardinal Secretary of State, the Catholic hierarchy capitulated to the Nazis, giving up all non-charitable organizations of any kind, which had to either disband or merge with the Nazis. In return, Hitler promised the Vatican a free hand in the maintenance and continuation of Catholic education.

The German Protestant churches, similarly self-neutering, agreed to similar measures, with notable exceptions such as Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who continued to sporadically speak out on issues like forcible sterilization and so called "eugenics" laws which allowed for murder of the mentally ill and retarded.

However, both Protestant and Catholic Germans remained Christian. Hitler personally dismissed Christianity, but tens of millions of Germans did not.

[trezic]

24. Points of view

If a church is prevented from doing good works for the least of society, obviously the Jews in this case, it might as well not exist. The purpose of the church is not to preach to the self-satisfied, but to work toward the betterment of all.

Hitler offered the Pope a guarantee on the safety of his clergy and flock in Germany if he would not speak against the anti-Jewish programs. Thus, the pope got the unenviable choice of doing the right thing and seeing Catholics punished for it or keeping quiet and protecting what he could. I won't say what he chose was right, but it's quite difficult to call it wrong as well.

While it's true that millions did remain nominally Christian, being involved in a church opened one to harrassment by the Gestapo. This was especially true after the Night and Fog order of 1941.

As for the euthanasia program, that was disbanded in 1936(?) after it became public. The response of the churches was a deciding factor in the attacks on the church. Wasn't there a saying 'One cannot be a Nazi and a good Christian' or something like that?

Anyway, yeah, I overshot. The church was emasculated and was not an integral part of the state, nonetheless.

[tom_paine]

23. Let's take this stepwise

Only at the end were Christian Churches hounded at all, and in fact up until taht trime, worked pretty well with Hitler, who not only invoked God (as Bush does) and inferred (or allowed his subordinates to infer for him) that he was sent by God, the Christian God.

The Pagan Nazi Mythos, which only took shape in the last few years, is commonly touted by Christians in denial. Of course, the years 1928-1942, in which German Churches willingly subordinated themselves (whether they did it because they had to or wanted to is irrelevant here) and worked closely with the Nazis (at the very least they remained silent) also happened.

Which makes Scalia an odious revisionist and others who would propagate the historically inaccurate "Pagan Nazi" bullshit when that was the case only at the end.

A fact that makes many Christians uncomfortable, but I don't see why it should as it is merely an extension of the Christian Witch Burning Mania that killed millions of "liberals" in the 15th and 16th Centries.

Name an example of a non-controlling decision by ANY court, one that specifies it will make no precedent.

Isn't there a judicial code of ethics that provides guidelines on when a judge should recuse?

Doesn't it quite specifically state that relatives involved with the litigants is cause enough for recusal? (or was, back in the days of the Old American Republic)

And yes, Gene Scalia was working for the Busheviks at the time, and YES, that should be reason enough, or should be in a Free Nation, not one like Imperial Amerika.

Aren't there laws, even though they aren't enforced when dealing with Imperials and their Cronies, that can be levied against judges who fail to recuse in clear conflict-of-interest cases?

Although as living in Bushistan has taught us, what are laws if people are too cowed to enforce them?

Now name an example of any high court at the Federal or State level to do so.

I see. Any organization that has people who act Really Nice (when they're with their own kind, that is) is automatically not corrupt?

For someone who claims to have a knowledge of the law, sir, that's a pretty lame argument.

The Federalist Society is full of hale and well-met Nice Folks who, at least when they aren't excoriating Jews, sorry... Liberals (I sometimes get confused between demonization groups from various Totalitarian Eras) are so nice and trustworthy that makes them inacapable of wrogndoing.

I see. I wonder why that "innocence by association" argument isn't use more often as trial defense.

I also wonder how many "nice things" the Nazis did. How many orphans and widows Nazi Fireman pulled out of burning buildings, how many charities Nazi gave to, how much service they did in the communities to their fellow Aryans?

As to the puzzling and schizophrenic behavior of corrupt men like Scalia, it is not hard to explain nor understand.

As a nation, we are in transition. Halfway in between Orwellian Totalitarian Tyranny and the Old American Republic, which was free.

I would expect such a nation, filled with people who have lived both free and enslaved (though not yet obviously or overtly as much of the Old America has yet to be swept away by time and planning), to often behave sometimes free, sometimes Totalitarian.

I would expect a man like Scalia, who fancies himself a member of a High Court of a Free Nation, to occasionally behave like such as long as it doesn't go directly against his Imperial Masters.

I would expect a man who, as a member of an institution that fewre and fewer people believe in the integrity, he would take occasions where the Imperial interest is not directly threatened, to go through the motions and make a "principled decision" sometimes.

Half-in and half-out. Schizophrenic.

By the way, I take it you've met members of the Federalist Society. Do you meet one every morning in the mirror, I wonder?

In either case, it doesn't matter. Sea changes take time. Amerikan Totalitarianism is likely to be kinder, gentler, and more illusory than the Nazis or Commies.

More like Imperial Rome, where it was in the best interests of the Caesers to maintain the illusion of freedom and the increasingly irrelevant Forms of the Old Republic, until it was too late for a popular awakening to do anything about it anyway.

But I know corruption when I see it, no matter how genteel, nice and civilized Federalist Front group members are to their own.

And I know what they and their members have done to our nation in the service of their Imperial Masters, from Scalia and Silbermann to Terry Wooten and "Judge" Sentelle.

No matter how "nice" they are to their own kind (Members of the Imperial Party, that is).

And how do they talk about the the Jews, errr....Democrats and Liberals (sorry, got my Totalitarian Demonized Groups mixed up again), when they aren't in public?

No, Sentelle & Starr, not to mention Terry Wooten and his handing over confidential FBI documents to Conservative David Brock, are the Poster Children for the Federalist Society and what it represents, no matter how cordial they are on a Duck Hunt.

[trezic]

34. Per request

Berry v. Superior Court, Cal. Ct. App., 256 Cal.Rptr. 344 (1989)

The California Supreme Court ordered this opinion not to be published in the official reporter nor to be considered as precedent.

It's not frequent, but it is done.

Federal judges serve for life per good behavior. Ultimately, the question of good behavior is as much political as it is legal. I'm not aware of federal laws that mandate recusal for any reason. They may exist, though, considering the importance of judicial independence, I would doubt it.

The rest of your post is, to be polite, piss and wind. My impression of this forum was to be an opportunity to argue, not to patronize anyone with a different opinion.

[tom_paine]

35. No one was patronizing you. Plus I notice you failed to address my points

"Piss and wind", indeed.

I notice you failed to mention my correction of the Nazi Pagan Myth you were pushing that so many find so comforting. Nor the odiousness and historical revisionism of Scalia which goes well beyond the Nazi Pagan Myth.

You failed to answer my question regarding Gene Scalia and the Judicial Guidelines for Recusal. You failed to acknowledge whether having a relative employed/involved with litigants is a reason for recusal and whether the absence of a recusal in such a relationship would raise eyebrows in a Circuit Court, let alone the "Supreme Court" (which is neither, at this point, I would argue).

You failed to elaborate on how the fact that individual Federalists are capable of compassion towards their friends and genteel civility in the company of equals

(and you are their equal, aren't you sir?)

makes them incapable of behaving at other times in a corrupt fashion where their interests are at stake.

[trezic]

37. Moral superiority

The only fool greater than a fool is the fool who argues with him. One last bite and I'm done.

I really have no interest in correcting your warped view of history. I'm sure if that if I asked for your sources, they'd all be some angry leftist historian who's still angry the Red Army was only allowed to capture half of Europe, not all. The last 20 years has seen quite a bit of questionable scholarship on the subject of WW2. Most of it appears to have the object of deriding the Catholic Church, not telling anything resembling the truth.

Your idea of me failing to answer your question is my failure to abjectly agree with you. Individual justices make up their own minds. The simple fact is that Gore's loss had more to do with losing the South than anything to do with Florida. Like Kerry, had he made an effort to contest the South, it's likely he'd have won. As it stands, no matter what conspiracy theory you want to believe, that issue is dead and gone.

You're entitled to your own view of the Federalist Society. From what I've seen, some are normal, some are whacked. Not much different from DU, to be honest. I do, however, have a problem with the use of generalizations based on what appears to be a lack of personal knowledge. I'm sure you'd be up in arms if someone called the ACLU a bunch of pedophile lovers, especially if that person knew no one at all from it.

Maybe you think your tone of moral superiority wins you some kind of special status. I don't know and don't much care.

And, just for fun, you failed to acknowledge the fact that you don't understand how precedent works. Thanks for playing.

[tom_paine]

40. A textbook case of smear and insults

Perhaps the only fool worse is the fool who cannot argue, but resorts to distarction and ad hominem.

As to my supposed "moral superiority", methinks you are engaging in a bit of projection, my lawerly friend.

(well, projection in between the insults you levy at me for the characteristic it sounds as if you dislike in yourself)

My apologies for ythe fact that you consider yourself morally superior. It does indedd drip from your every post, along with the genteel yet brutal ad hominems.

Again you miss points, misdirect and insult. You dragged my points about the Federalist Society into a condemnation of each and every member. You failed to acknowledge I was NEVER making that assertion regarding the membership individually but about the organization and it's actions.

Is that sort of misdirection what they teach at law school or at the AEI "How to Argue Using the Conservative Smearing/Distraction Template"? Either way, you argue like a Bushevik Lawyer.

No, I didn't wish for you to "abjectly agree with me" (nice yet pathetic misdirection & Straw Man) and yet you failed to address the points in any way, even to disagree.

Instead you substitue an insult or two, the clear sign of being bereft of facts...the last refuge of the incompetent (or the First Refuge of the Bushevik/Limbaughian). Even if you aren't a Bushevik/Limbaughian, your rhetorical and argumentative strategy mirrors theirs.

Then you misdirect when you Straw Man me by saying that my posts were about deriding the Cathlic Church.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but of course you know that.

Besides, any number of churches embraced Hitler, not just the Cathlolic, but what does that matter? You just wanted to tar me with the anti-religious brush.

Sorry, reciting the historic facts of various church complicity with the Nazis doesn't make on mindlessly anti-religious. (though it sure doesn't raise one's opinion of Organized Religion, either)

And yes, individual justices make up their own minds. They might make it in a a corrupt and servile fashion, ignoring precedent or recusal ethics and in favor of THE PARTY (without being told specifically), but on that I do agree with you.

What a shame the one correct point you made had little to do with the conversation.

By the way, I can very much appreciate your Bushian view of debate as a game in which rhetorical trickery, distraction, distortion, and "smear the messenger" is the measure of a debating "victory".

As I say, if you aren't a Bushevik, you certainly "argue" like one.

Oh yeah and I forgot, you used the Typical Bushevik assertion that I am Communist! An oldie but a goody, used back as far as when you guys were lynching Uppity Negroes and the Bushes were Laundering Hitler's money!

Funny how that isn't true at all. In fact, I loathe Communism both as a system and because Stalin had all 7 of Great-Uncles killed inthe 30s and 40s.

But I understand that, no matter how much you try, you have to be the person you are, and I know you folks love nothing better than a good smear cry of "Socialist! Communist! Stalinist!" so I won;t hold it against you.

But since when does truth matter to someone who "argues" using the Bush/Limbaugh template? Since when does a person who "argues" as you do let a little truth get in the way of a smear and misdirection.

Yup, ask any of the DU Comrades how much in agreement we are and how we read the same authors.

"Dumbass."
--Red "That 70s Show"

[lapislzi]

15. 3 words: Christian Reconstructionist Agenda

The man is brilliant and dangerous.

[Roland99]

17. .

And now that Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn are in power, they have more say.

Scary shit.

[Al-CIAda]

7. Possibly another 'attack' to get the ball rolling -eom

[Inland]

8. Most of the shit will fall after Bush leaves, by design.

The Bushie deficits are the largest in history. Yet, that is nothing compared to the effects AFTER he leaves office, as the cost of his new programs and new tax cuts kick in.

The Bush damage to the environment won't cause cancer or critical global warming until AFTER he is gone.

Retirees aren't going to figure out how Bush screwed them on social security until a post-mortem on the system is done in 2040.

The dollar crisis won't be recognized for the end of our economic primacy until a few years after the fact.

The failure to find new volunteers for the army is going to make the next president either reintroduce the draft or pay humoungous bonuses; after all, even the victims of the back door draft eventually get killed or too old.

[nodictators]

12. Bush's scam will destroy Social Security on or before 2018

2018 is the year that the Trust Fund is projected to hit its maximum. After that, money will be taken from the federal budget to buy back the bonds in the Trust Fund. The payback would be do-able, but Bush and the repubs want all of the Social Security money.

[me b zola]

19. Total dismantling of all social programs

and the dismantling of the Constitution to be replaced with a faith based constitution.

They've begun in the 90's, and they haven't been too quiet about their agenda.:grr:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. #1, 2, half of 3, 4, 5, half of 6, and 7

I take issue with "(dems will bend over and take it, while smiling)". Not only is it a quasi-bigoted remark, it implies we can do anything to stop it. And no, we won't just take it. We will filibuster nominees. But if a justice retires, someone HAS to take their spot. And we won't be the ones picking who it will be, like it or not.

And I don't think we'll invade North Korea. I think Bush is scared to death of the Koreans and knows we can't win there, presently constituted.

[Rebecca_Remarks]

10. What to expect...

To restate your list more realistically and to add to it.

1. The draft will be reinstated.
2. Electronic voting will be implemented nationwide. The Republicans will start stealing elections right and left until the only position a Democrat could be elected to will be dogcatcher.
3. War with Iran and North Korea.
4. <<Despite my feelings, I am not going to predict numbers of soldiers dead>>
5-6. Bush will appoint at least two (if not three) SC justices. Scalia will become the CJ
7. Bin Laden will become a convenient bogeyman for the government (much like "Big Brother" in 1984-- whether he exists or not is not important, just the ability to put someone up there to hate is).
8. Disruption of any Democratic functions (party meetings, conventions, etc.)
9. Political oppponents will be stripped of civil rights.
10. Imposition of Bible rules on civil society.
11. Opening of "detention centers" for people who don't believe in Creationism or Republican ideals. Many people will "disappear" in those centers.
12. Congress will eventually become handpicked by the administration as a "rubber stamp" for it's policies.

Rebecca

[Dulcinea]

11. Definitely 4 and 7. eom

[unblock]

14. i'm actually optimistic that shrub is rapidly becoming a lame duck

what with the republicans ALREADY jockeying for position in '08 even before shrub has been sworn in for his LAST (thank GAWD) term.

1) draft will not happen overtly, too unpopular. they will simply extend tours, deny retirement, and reactivate units. stretched too thin? of course, but politics is much more important that having an effective army, doncha know.
2) bbv, absolutely. we're in no position to stop it.
3) war with nk is out of the question. war with iran is remote. war with SYRIA, otoh, is quite likely. they just love beating up on the easy targets.
4) in truth, i think we're well above the 5,000 mark already. but more likely, shrub will declare victory (aGAIN) and shift forces to the next target while denying any wthdrawl, just as he did in afghanistan.
5) of course. what, you think he'll put up thomas??
6) 2 associate justices? about right. o'conner will get replaced with whomever shrub wants. stevens will hopefully last until the 2006 elections, after which the dems might see the upside in stalling until the 2008 elections.
7) bin ladin will never be found until a democrat is in elected. the republicans will the "find" him between election and swearing-in. perhaps he will surrender on swear-in day just before the dem gets in.

[msgadget]

18. I'm optimistic

A lot can happen in four years.

[sarcasmo]

21. WWIII if we invade Iran.

The draft will be the least of our problems. If we invade Iran it will be the USA, Israel and the British maybe Japan against everyone else.

[cry baby]

22. There are so many bad things in the works...

I am scared for my teenager kids, my family, and my country. I believe the worst case scenerio is that the world gets tired of listening to our crap and our invading other countries, that they decide to put a stop to it. Therefore, end of U.S.A. and our lives as we know them.

I am scared, even more than furious, and I am really, really furious!!!:mad:

[JoseRizal]

25. If our country experience this horrific scenarios

then I am all for it,perhaps then our countrymen will finally awaken from their sleep and see once and for all what has happened. Sometimes great tragedies must occur in order for the country and its people to live up to our respective responsibilities.
I hope that if a draft do come people who are of liberal thinking people will put up a fight in a fair manner and will not villify our Armed Forces, and those who are involved with it. I for one if ask or call on to enlist I will to prove to my very conservative friends that open minded person like myself are willing to represent my country in the United States Armed Forces. And to show I am not a traitor to my countrymen and it's constitution and to what it stands for.

[cry baby]

27. Are you implying that anyone who doesn't want to serve in the

military in the upcoming invasions of other countries is a traitor to their country? That is absurd!!!

[NeoTraitors]

28. Huh?

Bush Sr fought the Gulf War on the premise that you could not simply invade a non-threatening country the way that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bush Jr invading Iraq put that notion to bed. Which time was the govt right?
Supporting this constitution shredding president is treasonous IMO.

[cry baby]

29. OK, maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt...

Maybe you are saying that if the world was to decide to "shut us down", you would put on a uniform and serve your country. I'm not sure why you are worried about what your very conservative friends would think. If we were invaded, I think I would have to get a gun to defend the US myself. (Kind of like the Iraq people are doing)

Also, don't know why you chose the word traitor!?!

[DrGonzoLives]

26. 5

Scalia is pretty much the darling, and he's not going anywhere for a while, so expect to see him put up for the Chief spot when Rehnquist finally kicks the bucket.

NOTE: even a sitting Justice must still be re-confirmed as Chief.

[BlueManDude]

30. I know this for sure - We're gonna get hit again.

The Iraq invasion has ensured that another major terrorist attack will take place in the USA.

[bobbyboucher]

33. Did you read Osama's message just before the election?

He stated that the impetus for planning to bring down the WTC came in 1982 while watching the USS Missouri shelling the buildings in Beirut. It was then that they decided to seek revenge and send the US a dose of their own medicine.

My point is that you are right, sooner or later we will be attacked in spectacular and deadly fashion. Our actions have guaranteed a retaliation, and the scary part is, they are patient and they got forever.

They waited 19 years for 9/11.

[Famine]

31. No draft

I don't think those who aren't in the military realize how hostile the U.S. military is to a draft. This is their profession. The last thing they want it a bunch of low cost individuals doing their jobs. What you may see is increasingly higher pay and benefits, plus bonuses to entice the more desirable soldiers and sailors to stay in the military combined with another push to improve the technology in the direction of lowering manpower requirements. Unmanned aircraft, ships with half the size crew they require now, increasing smart bomb use, etc.

The draft is a bogeyman used to scare the uninformed. If its keeping you awake worrying about your kids, worry more about drugs and drunk driving.

I do think Bush will nominate Scalia to take Rehnquists position this year.

[okieinpain]

32. agree with all except 1 and 3. there will be no draft, and neo-cons

are not stupid, they will not attack a country that has nukes. setting off a nuke will affect the stock market, causing them to lose money.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. If they invade Iran we will have WWIII complete with Nukes, Neo

Cons might attempt a military coup in the US if they think they are gonna be kicked out of power OR if they are not allowed to invade Iran to continue their plan for world domination.

AOL/Time-Warner and GE and whole lot of American businesses think that the Neo-Cons are absolutely apeshit bonkers for even considering an invasion of Iran which would be INCREDIBLY bad for business, so they will do everything they can to make sure that it will not happen.

This means that the far right could implode.

Be sure to have plenty of popcorn on hand.

[zulchzulu]

38. Don't forget the environment getting screwed,theocratic judges...

More attacks on union labor...more control of the media by the Fewer...possible uses of martial law through Patriot Act "laws"...

...it can and might get pretty ugly...nothing surprises me anymore.

[medeak]

39. Syria and Venezuala

after listening to condi today.

[retread]

41. It will get worse than we can imagine, in ways we can't even dream !

*

[robbedvoter]

42. Why only 4 years? What makes you think things will change AFTER

that? it's not like we can vote for it, right?