If Bush ISN"T a fascist, why's he treating CA the way Nixon treated Chile

?

Just read at this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=498976, that W promised Arnold all the help he needed with CA. And this is after they did everything they could to sabotage Davis.

As I posted in that thread: Psst. They did the same thing with Allende and Pinochet.


They fucked the hell out of Allende's economy until they just fucking killed him, blamed the communists for being unable to run an
economy, and then they got Pinochet and turned on the money spigot (but all the money went to the oligarchs and the super wealthy
who hated the communists).

For the people visiting today, inspired by Limbaugh, my analogy might not be sufficiently clear. So, to help you out, and for today only
we'll be having Semiotics for Idiots 101:

DAVIS = ALLENDE, and

PINOCHET = SCWARZENEGGER.


And I know you're all snikcering because you think I just called Davis a communist. But you should be quaking in your little boots over
the fact that our government is so fucked up that it feels so threatened by MODERATES that it has to sabotage them. What are these
moderates doing that Bush finds so threatening? Oh, yeah. They want the middle and working class to break even every year. The
Republicans want them to go into debt paying taxes, for gas, electricity, and water, insurance, credit card interest. And they don't
want you to be so comfortable that you might be able to sell your labor on a competive market. They want to make sure that it's a
buyers market when it comes to labor.

In another post I noted that one way Republicans win is that they repeat the same word over and over again until people absorb it, like LIAR. Well, if the Democrats are going to win, they're going to have to learn to repeat this word over and over again: "fascists."

I know a lot of you don't believe this is what's going on, but, like Cornel West said in the last Matrix movie, comprehension is not prerequisite for cooperation.

this is important stuff.

Not in quite the same way, of course.

I maintain that, sometime during the Clinton Era, the Busheviks ceased avoiding using "Chile" style tactics here in the Empire.

Hell, the Bloodless Coup of 2000 looks like it came verbatim frfom Ed Luttwak's Coup D'Etat manual printed in the 60s.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674175476/ref%3Dnosim/bridgebooks/104-5703911-5016715

We are ALL Chileans, Iranians, and Nicaraguans now in the eyes of the Busheviks.

Can the Bushevik-sponsored Right-Wing Death Squads be far behind?

One wonders.

it would be no different. Your example only qualifies if Bush did a military takeover of California. Bush is an antidemocratic fuck, but this example is a poor one.

Never. In fact Clinton didn't let that happen to moderate Gray Davis.

The Bush administration BLUDGEONED CA so that people would blame Davis.

Democrats don't use the economy as a weapon. They don't ruin the lives of the middle and working class to make political points.

I'm absolutely stunned that you'd say this.

Give me one example of Democratic president doing this?

I'll admit, the Democrats wouldn't be above squeezing a Republican industry, like JFK did with the steel companies when the all acted like OPEC and raised prices. But that's why they shot JFK, probably.

This isn't republican vs dem largely because of the DLC.

never be elected president. I said a Democratic President would never do that. They might squeeze some industry trying to rip off the middle class and working class to help Democrats get elected, but they're not going to rip off the middle class and working class.

Clinton was president. Clinton put the price caps in effect in CA. Cheney took them off. CA got hurt real bad. Bush turned that into a rallying cry against Davis. Bush now says he's taking CA out of his vice grip, and he'll help Arnold.

That's what happened to Chile. And just like Chile, he won't be helping the working class and the middle class.