Let's take America back?

[John Smith]

I hear that the Dean's campaign is making a tactical change, -- from now on, the crowds are supposed to wave American flags as Howard speaks. Is that to clarify the slogan? They better do, -- because I am very puzzled as to what "Let's take America back" means. Is there some grammatical error in here, some bad English? Perhaps the originator of the slogan was the redneck carrying a rifle in his truck?
I mean, I would understand "let's take America into the future" (i.e., more prosperity, peace, civil liberties, etc.). But when I hear "let's take her back", all I can think of is slavery, Civil War, Great Depression, and prohibition. Isn't it interesting that with all that money and the brains, the best that Dean's campaign came up with was an obviously ambiguous message?

[Damien Howard]

To me it is very clear. "Let's take America back" means let's free her from republican tyranny. I don't think anyone would confuse this with taking America back in time to slavery or anything like that.

[Ken Krebs]

Whether it's coming from Dean or anyone else, to me, "Let's take America back" means taking government out the hands of the monied interests that have become dangerously dominant in American politics, particularly so under the current mis-adminstration.
Who does George W. Bush really work for, ordinary working Americans ?
I don't think so. He really works for Enron, Halliburton, Micro$oft, and scores of other corporations and wealthy individuals that fill his campaign war chest to overflowing.
Until there is true campaign finance reform, the interests of ordinary people will always come last. Public financing of elections is dirt cheap compared to paying for all the handouts that Shrub & co. give back to their financiers.
[ January 19, 2004: Message edited by: Ken Krebs ]

[Jim Yingst]

Eugene, I think most people, whether they agree with the sentiment or not, understand "take back" in this context to mean "take back control" rather than "take back in time".

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Eugene, I think most people, whether they agree with the sentiment or not, understand "take back" in this context to mean "take back control" rather than "take back in time".

Actually, they're the same thing...if you're a Democrat
[ January 20, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

What he means is "let's take ultimate power over America back from the opponents so we can once again rule suppreme and fatten our coffers over the backs of the people".

[Joe King]

Hmmm when I saw the thread title I wondered if it was a mad plan by Blair to bring the US back into the British Empire. Not sure if we'd want it all back though - I'd think we'd probably donate Texas to charity.

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
What he means is "let's take ultimate power over America back from the opponents so we can once again rule suppreme and fatten our coffers over the backs of the people".

Well that's the part of the manifesto for all out of power political parties, isn't it?

[Thomas Paul]

Possible Dean meanings...
"Let's take America back... to the Clinton years." - Perhaps Dean has plans for one of his interns. Have you seen a picture of his wife? Ugh!
"Let's take America back... from whitey!" - Maybe Dean is trying to attract NWA fans.
"Let's take America back... to the 50's." - Maybe Dean and his wife have dreams of being Ozzie and Harriet.
"Let's take America back... from the commies." - Maybe Dean is just confused and thinks we lost the Cold War.
[ January 20, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Paul Stevens]

Howard Dean trying to turn a 3rd place finish into some kind of win is just funny. Iowa was a big loss for him.

[Bela Bardak]

Pathetic, more like.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

Well that's the part of the manifesto for all out of power political parties, isn't it?

of course, didn't say it wasn't.
But IMO left-wing politicians are worse than right-wing because quite apart from being greedy they're also by definition incompetent...

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Hmmm when I saw the thread title I wondered if it was a mad plan by Blair to bring the US back into the British Empire. Not sure if we'd want it all back though - I'd think we'd probably donate Texas to charity.

Now someone's making some sense! Screw Dean! Joe King for President!

[Frank Silbermann]

"Let's take America back... from the commies." - Maybe Dean is just confused and thinks we lost the Cold War.

I wouldn't exactly say we won it. Seems to me it was more of a tie; the Soviet Union is no longer Communist, but Americans are no longer free. Our government is not yet fully totalitarian, but it does now seem to assert that there is no limit to its potential authority -- no meaningful aspect of our lives that is free from its reach.
I mean, what can you say about a government that can, say, forbid you from making a living by offering people a place to eat and smoke? And federal judges who deny the right to keep and bear arms!
And what of the "free world" we engaged in the Cold War to protect? They've lost even more freedom than we have, and they call it progress! (In the 1980s European and Australian youth condemned our efforts to keep communism out of Central America -- so why did we bother protecting their parents from Mao and Krustchev in the 1950s?)
In the Cold War we successfully defended our borders, but were defeated by a peaceful revolution at home.

[Joe Pluta]

I mean, what can you say about a government that can, say, forbid you from making a living by offering people a place to eat and smoke? And federal judges who deny the right to keep and bear arms!
The smoking ban is as inane as prohibition, but it's not exactly a reason to run up the hammer and sickle on the flagpole. And while I believe in the right to bear arms, I don't believe in the right to bear AK-47s and cop-killer bullets. If the pro-gun lobby were to be a little less pedantic in its position, there might be a compromise.
Anywho, the pendulum of personal freedom swings to and fro. You want to bitch about a REAL invasion of privacy, get on those RFID chips...
Joe

[Paul Stevens]

RFID chips can be turned off when you check out. They also have limited range so worry over them is little overblown.

[michael bradly]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
They also have limited range so worry over them is little overblown.

OnStar like systems are supposed to be used for emergencies, yet the FBI is using them for surveillance.
Homestead security is supposed to be used for defensive purposes, not tracking down renegade politicians.
The Patriot Act is intended to deal with crimes related to terrorism, not strip club owners.
My body doesn't emit heat very far, but that doesn't mean that my heat can't be monitored from afar.
Nothing can be taken lightly these days with a government hell bent on subtrefuge.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound?
If the government accesses my personal financial records without merit, places a gag order on those supplying the information a la Patriot Act 2 (which was quickly signed the same day Saddam was captured), does it affect me?
Well, I now know that tree makes a sound because it surely does effect me knowing that this is occuring. Oh wait, how can I know this is occuring if there is a gag order. Maybe that tree wanted to make a sound, but the Lorax was holed up in some jail cell under the guise of enviornmental terrorism in his last ditch attempt to prevent the clear cutting in California, and the tree realized the futility of it all.
Imagine if the Patriot Act was in place when Cherney and Bari were car bombed by the FBI. www.judibari.org They would have been whisked away never to be heard from again.
Oh, I'm getting off track.
This was supposed to be about taking back America. I suspect Dean is refering the fractured Democratic party galvanizing together simply to remove Bush from office- and considering they approved much of his policy and cow towed to him allowing him near emperial powers I find it too little, too late.

[Frank Silbermann]

me: I mean, what can you say about a government that can, say, forbid you from making a living by offering people a place to eat and smoke? And federal judges who deny the right to keep and bear arms!
Joe Pluta: The smoking ban is as inane as prohibition, but it's not exactly a reason to run up the hammer and sickle on the flagpole. And while I believe in the right to bear arms, I don't believe in the right to bear AK-47s and cop-killer bullets. If the pro-gun lobby were to be a little less pedantic in its position, there might be a compromise.

Joe, I agree wrt AK-47s -- if by "AK-47" you mean the excellent select-fire (full-auto and semi-auto modes) assault rifle.
And I also agree about cop-killer bullets -- if by that you're referring to handgun bullets with a steel (or equivalent) core to give it the power to penetrate a cop's kevlar vest.
You may be surprised to learn that the NRA also agrees, and has always agreed. Imagine that!
So what was the big controversey? Well, the NRA thinks there's no need to ban ordinary rifles that fire only one bullet at a time -- even if they're made to _look_ like AK-47s and share the same stocks, barrels, flash-hiders, bayonet mounts, etc. Before the ban the NRA argued that it was senseless to ban a gun merely because of the way it looks. After the ban passed, manufacturers made the same guns without the "evil" features (folding stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet mounts) legally -- and the anti-gun forces accused them of deviously evading the ban by producing guns every bit as dangerous! Duh! When you ban guns because of how they look and not wrt how they function then whattaya expect?
The news media drummed up support for the ban by showing AK-47s firing full-auto. A version of the "assault weapons ban" for guns like that already passed in 1986, with no resistance from the NRA! What do you think of people like those in the media who would lie to you like that?
Oh, and what was the controversey over "cop-killer bullets"? Well, there were some about 20 years ago made for police to penetrate barriers -- never sold to the general public. This was before it became widely known that police were starting to wear bullet-resistant vests. A guy from the anti-gun lobby decided to make points by banning "all ammo capable of penetrating a cop's kevlar vest." Well, kevlar isn't magic, and it required about twelve layers of it to stop a pistol bullet. It would require forty or more layers to stop a bullet from a hunting rifle -- but the twelve layer vest was already about as thick and heavy as any cop could tolerate wearing. So the NRA asked that the law be rewritten to only cover specially-constructed handgun bullets -- and not hunting rifle bullets that penetrate through sheer power, lest ammo for all hunting rifles be accidently outlawed. Guess what? That bill passed twenty years ago! But we still get jerks trying to resubmit a bill in the original language (banning hunting ammo) so they can paint the NRA is radical. (Nor do they care that everytime they bring up this bogus issue the remind bad guys that cops were vests so they should shoot for the head.)
What do you think of such swindlers? How do you feel about the way they deceived you, and blackened the reputation of decent reasonable people?
I know how I felt when I learned about how my opinions were manipulated. I swore that I would do whatever I could to ensure that their sleazy tactics backfired on them. They made me an enemy for life.
[ January 20, 2004: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Now someone's making some sense! Screw Dean! Joe King for President!

Trouble is that being English (not to mention an evil socialist) I'd probably not be allowed to be Presedent. Thinking about it, I'd probably turn it down anyway - I'd be forever having to answer people asking which part of Australia I come from