What's impeach mean??

Oh. My. Goodness. That is funny.

In a totally horrifying sort of way.

dennis kucinich says impeachment is ON the table, join him :)

This bitch is a Crook and a Liar!!!!!

Since impeachmeant is off the table, what is Nancy serving? Baloney! Not so much yum happening in my mouth for that.

Nice try, but my post gets down into the reality of the matter:

Queen Nancy...proud...arrogant...another American war criminal

Be sure and clik on her pic.

Come election time she's gonna be wishin' it was just Code Pink in her front yard. I promise you that!

Don Keyotiee @ 11:

Ignore the [deleted] war media in this country, and vote for Dennis Kucinich, he will end the war now and make real meaningful changes in America. Vote for Dennis.

Prove your comment about [deleted] media and the Iraqi war.
Site Monitor--No, let's not let that conversation continue.

[deleted] war media? Apparently, you got into the Christmas Absinthe a little early. That's crazy talk, sailor.

Yes, it is, and we don't want it to continue. Thanks for cooperating.

True, but I loved the time Keith Olberman had on an author that had written a book about the Holocaust to discuss the problems between Hamas and Fatah.

Even with Charlie Rose, one of the first programs I've seen with a Palestinian on for the full time period, terrified to discuss Israeli nuclear weapons.

I won't say they control it, but I do think they influence it a heck of a lot. If you don't believe me, go to a Temple in Bel Aire sometime and see who shows up.

Who would invasion of Iran benefit other than Israel? Who would have benefited the most from the invasion of Iraq? Remember those payments by Hussein to the families of suicide bombers in Israel?

And who is most afraid of the US pulling out of Iraq and leaving the middle east in chaos?

Lieberman?

On the other hand, if Dennis had $18.5 to spend on advertising I bet he'd get a lot more air time. Look at how many programs now have on the unmentionable one.

Fair Witness @ 15:

Don Keyotiee @ 11:

Ignore the [deleted] war media in this country, and vote for Dennis Kucinich, he will end the war now and make real meaningful changes in America. Vote for Dennis.

erm?

Wash your sheets today?

So the 911 commission is considering re-opening the 911 investigation in light of the destroyed evidence....
Oops. I'm sorry. I forgot.

i have to confess, even though i'm voting for obama, i've got a lot of respect for dennis kucinich.

i wish he'd do something big to mount new support. for example, his wife has already publicly stated the kootch supports an independent 9/11 investigation.

if he put that front and center, he might have a better chance at an upset, because the public support would be tremendous.

I'm, sorry, Sitemonitor. Happy Holidays and please allow me to buy the next round of egg nog? I secretly admire you, from afar, and I'm grateful you are there. I mean it. You rock my world the hard way. Mwah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Vl0peys90

Her "Impeachment is off the Table" sign is on her desk right between the cover-it-up paper weight and her bribe jar.

Looks like Jose is dragging the WH deeper into the CIA tape scandal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article30872...
Ahhh....I'm smell the putridness of immunity for Jose.

ROM Spaceknight @ 22:

i have to confess, even though i'm voting for obama, i've got a lot of respect for dennis kucinich.

i wish he'd do something big to mount new support. for example, his wife has already publicly stated the kootch supports an independent 9/11 investigation.

if he put that front and center, he might have a better chance at an upset, because the public support would be tremendous.

you are voting for a man who is talking about maybe getting our troops out of IRAQ eventually....2 years from now?...and is a member of the Council on Foreign relations....the organization behind it all? Educate yourselves... Vote Ron P. Id vote Kucinich but his economic views will collapse our economy

wow. powerful.

Will somebody please explain to me where the 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Bush and Cheney are going to come from? When a simple and non-punitive censure against Alberto Gonzoles couldn't even get 60 votes to break the filibuster?

Then will you explain why the same Supreme Court that illegally appointed W - now bolstered by two "all power to the president" Federalists is gonna suddenly see the light and rule that executive privilege does not apply regarding production of necessary evidence for the Senate trial? Explain to me why this isn't the worst possible time to force this issue and set precedents that could last forever. Please! I would LOVE to see those bastards in jail.

Lest anyone think I am a fan of Reid or Pelosi, the BS about needing a veto-proof majority to end the war is just that. The power of the pursestring is absolute. All they have to do is proclaim that we will provide all necessary funding to bring the troops home whenever Bush wants it - not one penny more. No more blank checks - period.

So blame the Dems for funding the war all you want - that's fair. But impreachment is only an indictment; an indictment followed by inevitable acquittal is worse than pointless. It allows for the completely bogus (in this case - but highly credible to the credulous majority) claim of complete vindication. Is that really what you want?

How Disappointing is that??
Nancy, You and your crew came up real small.
Sadly & with heaps of bitter irony, Iraq is gonna cost the Dems' next year....

If youre making the far left angry, you must be doing something right. Impeachment would be a disaster for '08. She and Harry Reid have shown that although theyre quite liberal themselves, that theyre pretty reasonable. As a 'DLC democrat' Im very satisfied with how theyre running things.

The Left better prepare to get smacked-down by the dem nominee too, no matter if its Obama or Hillary. I cant wait for that.

I'm curious what word was deleted? cuz I've seen cuss words and other stuff on here, so I'm really curious.

anyway.

I wasn't at all surprised when Nancy said it was off the table. she's moderately wealthy, baby boomer aged, and a white, chick. so of course she's shying away from "uncomfortable" situations.

It would not be a disaster if someone had to courage to give us the impeachment many of us have been begging for. What is worse, for the cowards, is the indelible stain on their careers and conscience for not utilizing the means to Impeach. In case no one noticed, those stains don't wash off to easily.

I personally am not all that worried about impeachment. The bastard will be gone in a year, and impeachment will be a media circus that will fail. It will not pass the Senate anyhow. Just relax, guys. I know Bush is an ass, I know he is dangerous. But pushing impeachment just to say we did is fruitless and stupid. It will not pass and will only hurt the party. We'll have damn near a supermajority in Senate and the presidency too in 2009. Be patient: the founding fathers designed government to work slow, to quell the passions of the people. Work to get candidates elected who will end the war. War is over, if you want it bad enough. Work your ass off. I'm spending my Christmas Break in Iowa and Nevada working to get a presidential candidate who will end the War elected--so I do practice what I preach.

Definitely NOT a fan of Pelosi.

Sean,

There's alot more to be concerned about than just ending the war.

The Bushies have contempt for the Constitution. Elections are being stolen. The former governor of Alabama, Don Seigelman, is a political prisoner. There's a tap on the whole country's communications.

The media would be forced to cover impeachment hearings. Few people realize how criminal the Bushies and the Repubs in Congress have been behaving. Most people expect their elected reps. to take care of this kinda stuff for them and Pelosi better start doing that.

Impeachment is the only true remedy. The Constitution says nothing about the political timing of impeachment.

Keep up the good work getting a Dem elected prez but keep in mind that alot more damage could be done in the next 400 days to our Constitution.

I disagree. I think when the evidence would be presented that Republicans and Democrats alike would vote to impeach. I think that *they* can't wait to have a chance to take the Bush Crime Family out (politically speaking), as they're in their shit even more than they're in our shit.

Can we impeach Nancy?

Zimdog @ 50:

Sean,

There's alot more to be concerned about than just ending the war.

The Bushies have contempt for the Constitution. Elections are being stolen. The former governor of Alabama, Don Seigelman, is a political prisoner. There's a tap on the whole country's communications.

The media would be forced to cover impeachment hearings. Few people realize how criminal the Bushies and the Repubs in Congress have been behaving. Most people expect their elected reps. to take care of this kinda stuff for them and Pelosi better start doing that.

Impeachment is the only true remedy. The Constitution says nothing about the political timing of impeachment.

Keep up the good work getting a Dem elected prez but keep in mind that alot more damage could be done in the next 400 days to our Constitution.

I am well aware of what Bush is doing, as I am aware of what Lyndon Johnson did in his lies about Vietnam. Brother, the Democrats are doing the best that they can. Defunding the war is not an option. Claire McCaskill is an AWESOME senator, principled and bullish. But she comes from my home state, which is just to the right-of-center. And though I don't live there now, I did help to get her elected. She votes so much better than Jim Talent, on the Iraq War as well. But she will not vote to defund the war. To do so is political suicide--MOREOVER, it is not what the American people want. The most recent poll I have seen showed that the vast majority want the war over "within a year" but very few selected the "pull them out immediately" option.

As for the Constitutional issues, when we have a Democratic administration we can pass legislation to correct these inconsistencies. With a supermajority in the Senate perhaps we could even get a Constitutional Amendment for the Right to Privacy. But we aren't going to get there by tearing the party apart right before we get to the promised land.

Sean @ 46:

I personally am not all that worried about impeachment. The bastard will be gone in a year, and impeachment will be a media circus that will fail. It will not pass the Senate anyhow. Just relax, guys. I know Bush is an ass, I know he is dangerous. But pushing impeachment just to say we did is fruitless and stupid. It will not pass and will only hurt the party. We'll have damn near a supermajority in Senate and the presidency too in 2009. Be patient: the founding fathers designed government to work slow, to quell the passions of the people. Work to get candidates elected who will end the war. War is over, if you want it bad enough. Work your ass off. I'm spending my Christmas Break in Iowa and Nevada working to get a presidential candidate who will end the War elected--so I do practice what I preach.

I would tend to agree with you about the impeachment issue. But, looking at the Democrats' track record over the last 12 months, since the elections, it's clear the majority are in bed with the administration. They keep approving billions of dollars worth of funding for the Iraq war for god's sake. What's it going to take for them to stand up and speak out against what's happening around them. They're sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

I can understand them not wanting to go along with the impeachment circus, but what about everything else? The way I see it, they've betrayed us and betrayed the trust of those who voted the Dems back into Congress in '06 and if the Republicans win back both houses in the next elections so be it.

Good night. (for realzzzzzzzz) lol

Sean @ 51:

McDuff @ 45:

Pelosi deserves to be voted out of Congress and out of public office ASAP. Let her political career come to a screeching halt and her name be forgotten for good.

I remember an interview she did with 60 minutes a few weeks before the 2006 elections in which she was asked about her calling Bush "incompetent". I thought to myself, well, there's still hope for this country. If she gets elected, she'll make a difference. Well, we all know what happened next.

Good night. Happy holidays and a Happy New year.

Bullshit. There has been a lot done for this country in the past year. As a college student, I am kind of offended that you think increasing the Pell Grants I use to pay for college are a waste of time.

Bullshit eh? While you're enjoying your grants, thousands are dying in Iraq, soldiers are getting their limbs blown off, our rights are being taken away and so on, but you're happy and content because you're getting your loans paid.

Hey kid, get your fucking priorities straight!

McDuff @ 58:

Sean @ 46:

I personally am not all that worried about impeachment. The bastard will be gone in a year, and impeachment will be a media circus that will fail. It will not pass the Senate anyhow. Just relax, guys. I know Bush is an ass, I know he is dangerous. But pushing impeachment just to say we did is fruitless and stupid. It will not pass and will only hurt the party. We'll have damn near a supermajority in Senate and the presidency too in 2009. Be patient: the founding fathers designed government to work slow, to quell the passions of the people. Work to get candidates elected who will end the war. War is over, if you want it bad enough. Work your ass off. I'm spending my Christmas Break in Iowa and Nevada working to get a presidential candidate who will end the War elected--so I do practice what I preach.

I would tend to agree with you about the impeachment issue. But, looking at the Democrats' track record over the last 12 months, since the elections, it's clear the majority are in bed with the administration. They keep approving billions of dollars worth of funding for the Iraq war for god's sake. What's it going to take for them to stand up and speak out against what's happening around them. They're sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

I can understand them not wanting to go along with the impeachment circus, but what about everything else? The way I see it, they've betrayed us and betrayed the trust of those who voted the Dems back into Congress in '06 and if the Republicans win back both houses in the next elections so be it.

Good night. (for realzzzzzzzz) lol

That's utterly ridiculous. There has been so much progress made this year: from ENDA coming closer than it ever has to becoming law to the first serious energy bill to become law practically since scientists freakin' discovered global warming. The Dems have not been perfect, but the ideologues on the far left are the ones that will make sure we go back to gay marriage amendment votes and acts of congress to get Terri Schiavo a happy meal. You guys spit in the face of everything I work so hard for, me--a college student who has other things he could be doing--I'm missing New Years parties and all the normal college-age things that happen in them so I can freeze my ass off in Iowa. The least you all can do is never, ever again talk about not giving a damn about a returning Republican majority.

My Daddy used to tell me that Republicans and Democrats were just two sides of the same coin and the reason he was a Democrat for so long was that he believed they gave the working man a little bigger slice of the pie. In his later years he favored the Libertarian mindset.

I do take issue with Jonesy's comment that if you're making the far left angry you're doing something right.

Maybe that's how Jonesy votes but I vote for the person I expect to support and implement policy that I agree with, not the one most likely to piss off my opponents.

The idea is to elect policymakers who will represent, heed and implement to the best of their ability the will of the majority and in doing so, serve our country and our citizens first and foremost.

Sadly, the process continues to disintegrate into a mosh pit of which side can decimate and discredit the other more convincingly and the cheaper the shot, the better.

I don't know about Jonesy but my criteria for supporting someone elected to a powerful position do not include what faction they are pissing off, regardless of whether I share that group's ideology.

Gloating over which side can humiliate the other more effectively and more often has become the measure of political power and the method of courting public support.

Tragically, it continues to work. Just ask Jonesy.

The Christmas Spirit is running rampent here tonight. Someone should tell it to stop breaking up all the furniture and get back to work!

McDuff @ 61:

Sean @ 59:

Stanley Rosenthal @ 52:

I disagree. I think when the evidence would be presented that Republicans and Democrats alike would vote to impeach. I think that *they* can't wait to have a chance to take the Bush Crime Family out (politically speaking), as they're in their shit even more than they're in our shit.

The majority will vote that way, eh? Prove it.

What's it to you? You're happy with your grants. Why do you care if he's impeached or not?

Is Pelosi your aunt? Do you get spoon fed by her and flown on her private jet from one extra curricular activity to another?

As I told the last person, I know more about the price of this war than all the radicals ever do. i don't support the war, I almost lost my brother in the war. I want the war over, but I am able to see the bigger picture. A quick withdrawal might mean the rise of another brutal dictator, and millions more Iraqi and American dead. We need to get a Democratic president, set a timeline and follow the other recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report.

67 Zimdog Says:

Why can’t we just follow the Constitution and expect our elected Reps to obey their Oaths?

Well, i think it is because they haven't.

Being a radical isn't a hobby. It is not something one does to while away the hours between football games. Maybe you never met one but many radicals just got back from Iraq and they want us to leave.

> The only clause in the Constitution that supports this is the General Welfare Clause, ...

That's good enough for me.

The war didn't start till 2003. Perhaps instead of stopping the war, you meant to say that the time to prevent it was in 2002.

Jonesy @ 40:

If youre making the far left angry, you must be doing something right. Impeachment would be a disaster for '08. She and Harry Reid have shown that although theyre quite liberal themselves, that theyre pretty reasonable. As a 'DLC democrat' Im very satisfied with how theyre running things.

The Left better prepare to get smacked-down by the dem nominee too, no matter if its Obama or Hillary. I cant wait for that.

"the left" ?

katsiskats @ 76:

The war didn't start till 2003. Perhaps instead of stopping the war, you meant to say that the time to prevent it was in 2002.

That is what I meant, during the debate. I was looking at the War as if it were a speeding train with BushCo as the conductor. It needed to be stopped when it was possible to stop it. I don't think for a second that Bush wasn't intending to make this War happen, even before it began in '02.

And Sean ,don't confuse the occupation in Iraq with Impeachment.

It would be kind of ironic if we had back-to-back impeachments, but I think history will record this presidency as one of the most corrupt and misguided in history. Of course, it would be nice to have Bushco so tied up with impeachment hearings they had little time for anything else, which was the real reason the Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton. Bill himself has said this, he was just way to successful. Impeachment wasn't an ideal, it was just a tool to keep him from doing other things.

But what we're all forgetting is that there really isn't an adversarial relationship in Washington. Look at earmarks and the way McHenry got sliced and diced by his own party for standing for transparency.

Washington is an oligarchy, raiding the last coins of the realm. The only competition is between us the citizens and those inside the Beltway. Attack their nice padded bank accounts and they'll circle the wagons to fend off all outsiders, meaning anyone that isn't a federal politician or lobbyist.

What do the following have in common;

67 percent of those polled in vermont,
54 percent of those polled nationally,
kucinich and 25 congressional representatives,
wexler and two other senate judiciary committee members,
131000 americans signed on to http://wexlerwantshearings.com/ ,
986000 signed onto http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5197 ,
the millions that marched in the streets in cities across this great land of ours,
bruce fein, other constitutional lawyers and 1000 US federal attorneys,
conyers and mckinney in the 109th congress

They all want to see articles of impeachment brought to bear against both dick cheney and george bush jr for high crimes against the constitution and war crimes against humanity.

How will history remember your participation or lack of it in bringing back the rule of law to the United States of America?

Who will you hold accountable for the hundreds of alleged crimes against this corrupt administration?

Sean, i think there are far more people to the left of you than you think.

The clause to "promote the general Welfare" is not vague. It's in the bloody preamble. Follows the providing "for the common defense".

And you notice that "Welfare" is capitalized while "common defense" is only simply stated. People back then wrote a little differently when they thought something needed additional emphasis. Check out an original copy of Hobbes' Leviathan for an additional example.

We aren't talking theory, Sean. It is *FACT* that there's a General Welfare clause.

I think you have some great ideas Sean, I just think you are still too quick on your time scale.

It's going to take close to a decade just to purge the political appointees turned civil servants out of government leadership positions.

When i was in turkey, there was a story about John Kennedy. Part of the agreement resulting after the Cuban missile crisis was that the US take its nukes out of Turkey. Kennedy ordered the nukes taken out. The military took them up to Germany, refueled the planes, and took them right back in direct violation of the president's orders. The generals and civil servants didn't care what President Kennedy said and got by with it. As far as I know they're still in Turkey to this day. Civil servants have an incredible amount of power.

We are going to be paying for the political appointees that Cheney has been able to squirrel away for a long time. It's going to take more than an election, it's going to take a complete extermination (figuratively, of course. Don't come knocking.).

Sean @ 87:

Jow @ 78:

Jonesy @ 40:

If youre making the far left angry, you must be doing something right. Impeachment would be a disaster for '08. She and Harry Reid have shown that although theyre quite liberal themselves, that theyre pretty reasonable. As a 'DLC democrat' Im very satisfied with how theyre running things.

The Left better prepare to get smacked-down by the dem nominee too, no matter if its Obama or Hillary. I cant wait for that.

"the left" ?

"FAR left"

I consider myself a firm progressive, but I recognize there are many people quite to the left of me in the speed at which they wish to challenge the status quo. I believe the far left will push until they get another Nixon-Reagan Revolution to push them backwards as a reaction instead of the forwards they intended. Change is scary, and it must happen patiently. That is why Martin Luther King Jr. said, when asked about blacks being allowed to marry whites, that he wanted to be "the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law." He realized pragmatically that it could set the Civil Rights movement backward to push too hard, too fast. Like the tortoise and the hare story your mom no doubt read to you. The hare tires out cos he's running too damn hard toward the finish line. The tortoise beats him cos he knows how to play the game and win. The Conservatives took forty years in the wilderness after Goldwater to get where they are now. It's going to take a long time to bring back the days of Roosevelt and Earl Warren. But I'm patient, and long after some of you have given up into some kind of nihilistic stupor, I hope to be laying the groundwork to make sure the kind of people we have in government are a bit more, shall we say, Wellstone.

xoites defends Constitution @ 91:

40 years in the wilderness?

Let me see if i can remember...

Oh, Yeah.

Johnson 1963-1968 (D)

Nixon 1968-1974 (R)

Ford 1974-1976 (R)

Carter 1976-1980 (D)

Reagan 1980-1988 (R)

Bush 1988-1992 (R)

Clinton 1992-2000 (D)

Bush 2000-Impeacment (R)

I can't find no 40 years in there since Goldwater without no Republican President, can you?

There is a difference between a so-called Rockefeller Republican like Ford (and even Nixon, he was a crook but he did create the EPA) and a Bush. Reagan was a piece of work, an embodiment of the conservative ideals. But Bush takes the cake; he is the culmination of all their efforts. The unholy union of church, Friedman economics and rampant militarism.

xoites defends Constitution @ 95:

Sean @ 93:

xoites defends Constitution @ 88:

Sean, i think there are far more people to the left of you than you think.

Yes, and they are the hare I referred to in the text I wrote above. That's one thing I can say about the damn fundamentalist churches. In the state I am in, in a STATE legislator's house district--three rural counties--they managed to get just shy of three thousand people to call the state rep in one day to get him to change his vote (and he did). That is like a third of the population of the whole district. Those on the left FAR outnumber those on the right, but they are not as organized or determined. And most importantly, they are not nearly as pragmatic. That's why I commenting on this shit at 3am, because I want to see those on the left--not lose their values--but be willing to work hard over the course of good times and bad to make the changes they want to see. Because they aren't going to come easily, or quickly.

Well this hare has been plugging along since 1973. Your bullshit about waiting for glaciers to move would be funny except for global warming.

Yes, and in all that time we had no legislation to curb the emissions that cause global warming, until this year. The political capital gathered under the auspices of the Democratic Revolution has pushed even the mighty auto industry to yield. By the time Bush is gone and we have a Democratic president, the Kyoto Protocol will be replaced with something much more beautiful and I daresay even King Coal might be forced on bended knee. We are on the cusp of greatness and all you guys see is what has yet to have been done, instead of what has come to pass.

xoites defends Constitution @ 97:

So you define 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW as the wilderness. I suppose you when you go fishing you drop you line into the swimming pool at the Waldorf Astoria.

That makes no sense...when I say wilderness I am referring to the social/neo-conservative ideological wing of the Republican Party. It wasn't always as it is now, just like the Democratic Party of Roosevelt is a far cry from that of William Jefferson Clinton and his DLC. I'm not sure if you realized it, but the Democratic and Republican Parties are not really parties at all, as most of the world's political systems view political parties (in the parliamentary system of government). The Republican and Democratic Parties act as coalitions. The Republicans have neo-conservatives, theo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, classical liberals; the Democrats have Blue Dogs, Pro-Life Dems, progressives, DLCers, etc. If you keep in mind that our government is less a dichotomy and more a gathering of two coalitions, you will understand American political governance much better.

xoites defends Constitution @ 99:

When you don't agree with the basic facts its real hard to come to a simular conclusion, ain't it?

To quote Mark Twain (and Al Gore):

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

eastcoasty @ 4:

Oh. My. Goodness. That is funny.

In a totally horrifying sort of way.

qouted for truth....but still funny.......

Sean, It has been a mainline, centerist democrat, Charles Dingle, who has kept mileage requirements OUT of all enviromental and enrgy legislation for the past 30 years. You sound like a relatively young man, it is a pity you are so cautious now as when you get older you will, no doubt, become a repub.

DonsBlog @ 103:

It seems like every few years we have a new crisis. Who else remember over population? What is going to happen when we have tens of thousands of scientists around the world with almost unlimited resources working on a solution to global warming?

They keep telling us that 'in 20 years'. That is a flat projection without taking into consideration macro engineering.

Personally, I'm a lot more worried about genetic engineering or some high school gene splicing experiment going wrong. Anyone seen 'I Am Legend' yet?

As soon as global warming is behind us it will be some new reason the sky is falling, so all college students shouldn't worry about missing out on this crisis. A new one will be coming along shortly.

Oh, i seriously doubt they will miss it.

We have several more looming on the horizon. Chinese in space, Putin becoming dictator for life, global dimming, genetic plants gone awry, Indian IT consultants invading our shores.

While we'll be dealing with global warming, some solution like seeding the troposphere with sulphur will come along and everyone will forget about it soon enough.

Oh, i seriously doubt they will miss it.

john @ 32:

ROM Spaceknight @ 22:

i have to confess, even though i'm voting for obama, i've got a lot of respect for dennis kucinich.

i wish he'd do something big to mount new support. for example, his wife has already publicly stated the kootch supports an independent 9/11 investigation.

if he put that front and center, he might have a better chance at an upset, because the public support would be tremendous.

you are voting for a man who is talking about maybe getting our troops out of IRAQ eventually....2 years from now?...and is a member of the Council on Foreign relations....the organization behind it all? Educate yourselves... Vote Ron P. Id vote Kucinich but his economic views will collapse our economy

Ron Paul's economic positions would destroy us. We have basically seen that left unregulated -and with government agencies looking the other way,- that the rich will destroy everyone and everything in their path. And it won't take them very long either. This is where the dead-end of libertarian economic policies lead. Furthermore, our economy has been destroyed already by the very type of "no government intervention" conservative/libertarian idealogue's in this administration. Libertarianism inevitably = aristocracy/plutocracy.

As soon as global warming is behind us

I don't claim to know whether human activity has caused or possibly acclerated global warming but in any event, it's not going to go away anytime soon and certainly not in our lifetime.

Global warming is ahead of us, not behind us, and it will outlive all of us.

111 Sean

Until it is Amended it is sacred as far as the law goes. Blur it and lose it. The world has put up with us having all these weapons and all this power chiefly because of our Constitution. Trust me, if we stray too much farther the world will find a way to bring us down.

DonsBlog @ 94:

I think you have some great ideas Sean, I just think you are still too quick on your time scale.

It's going to take close to a decade just to purge the political appointees turned civil servants out of government leadership positions.

When i was in turkey, there was a story about John Kennedy. Part of the agreement resulting after the Cuban missile crisis was that the US take its nukes out of Turkey. Kennedy ordered the nukes taken out. The military took them up to Germany, refueled the planes, and took them right back in direct violation of the president's orders. The generals and civil servants didn't care what President Kennedy said and got by with it. As far as I know they're still in Turkey to this day. Civil servants have an incredible amount of power.

We are going to be paying for the political appointees that Cheney has been able to squirrel away for a long time. It's going to take more than an election, it's going to take a complete extermination (figuratively, of course. Don't come knocking.).

Sean @ 87:

Jow @ 78:

Jonesy @ 40:

"the left" ?

"FAR left"

I consider myself a firm progressive, but I recognize there are many people quite to the left of me in the speed at which they wish to challenge the status quo. I believe the far left will push until they get another Nixon-Reagan Revolution to push them backwards as a reaction instead of the forwards they intended. Change is scary, and it must happen patiently. That is why Martin Luther King Jr. said, when asked about blacks being allowed to marry whites, that he wanted to be "the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law." He realized pragmatically that it could set the Civil Rights movement backward to push too hard, too fast. Like the tortoise and the hare story your mom no doubt read to you. The hare tires out cos he's running too damn hard toward the finish line. The tortoise beats him cos he knows how to play the game and win. The Conservatives took forty years in the wilderness after Goldwater to get where they are now. It's going to take a long time to bring back the days of Roosevelt and Earl Warren. But I'm patient, and long after some of you have given up into some kind of nihilistic stupor, I hope to be laying the groundwork to make sure the kind of people we have in government are a bit more, shall we say, Wellstone.

I agree totally. Cheney and Bush have fucked America bad; it will take at least a couple decades of work to undo all that has been done. That is why we must focus and work hard to lay the groundwork for change. We just now have a progressive answer (http://www.acslaw.org/) to the Federalist Society, for Christ's sakes! I just don't want to be too depressing for those who are more ideologically-inclined among us. I don't think dreaming is bad, in fact it is necessary. But dreams must eventually form into plans, ideas and political action.

I am not a DLC Democrat nor a Kucinich Democrat...I'm more of a synthesis of the two. I believe the corporations have too much power and must be reined in, but I don't want to destroy them. I believe in a single-payer universal health care system for all Americans, but I want to make sure we have a plan that won't hurt the economy. I believe stopping global warming is imperative, but I want to create the kind of economic incentives to enhance America's entrepreneurial spirit rather than deflate it (for example, I like cap-and trade).

UnEasyOne @ 117:

UnEasyOne @ 36:

Will somebody please explain to me where the 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Bush and Cheney are going to come from? When a simple and non-punitive censure against Alberto Gonzoles couldn't even get 60 votes to break the filibuster?

Then will you explain why the same Supreme Court that illegally appointed W - now bolstered by two "all power to the president" Federalists is gonna suddenly see the light and rule that executive privilege does not apply regarding production of necessary evidence for the Senate trial? Explain to me why this isn't the worst possible time to force this issue and set precedents that could last forever. Please! I would LOVE to see those bastards in jail.

Lest anyone think I am a fan of Reid or Pelosi, the BS about needing a veto-proof majority to end the war is just that. The power of the pursestring is absolute. All they have to do is proclaim that we will provide all necessary funding to bring the troops home whenever Bush wants it - not one penny more. No more blank checks - period.

So blame the Dems for funding the war all you want - that's fair. But impreachment is only an indictment; an indictment followed by inevitable acquittal is worse than pointless. It allows for the completely bogus (in this case - but highly credible to the credulous majority) claim of complete vindication. Is that really what you want?

First time I have ever quoted my own comment - but since it was completely ignored in all the impeachment back and forth, I thought I'd add to it.

I would have been amused at the comment that Republicans would suddenly "find Jesus" and vote to impeach, convict and remove Bush and Cheney if it wasn't so sad and naive. I would definitely agree that executive privilege doesn't apply to impeachment and the subsequent trial of elected officials - then again, I would have said with great certainty that the Supreme Court no constitutional authority whatsoever to order the state to stop counting the vote, effectively appointing the president of the United States. So it didn't happen - right? And the sitting Chief Justice wasn't appointed by Bush - right?

Wishful thinking and Pollyannaish belief in the integrity of the Republicans ain't gonna do a damned thing to get those thugs out of office - but it can cause a lot of harm impeachment zealots refuse to consider.

No one who has ever posted on this site wants those bastards out of office and behind bars more than I do. But I'd rather take my chances wishing for it than depend on 17 Republican Senators and the Roberts court to make it happen.

Either way, Bush is gonna serve out his term - and at the end of it he won't be able to claim vindication, legal redress may be possible, and we won't be living with the precident that a president can ignore any demand for information he chooses.

I agree with you on most of this, but I don't think I would be comfortable defunding the war. There is no question they can do it, and there may come time for it--say, if Huckabee (God forbid) wins the presidency. But I do believe Bush would just leave the troops over there to die if the Democrats defunded the War. I am afraid of doing anything to harm the troops. What they could do is send Bush military funding that has been vetted for unnecessary expenditures. And Claire McCaskill's reintroduction of the Truman Commission is a stroke of genius. But...I dunno. I'm biased because my brother was over there. I wouldn't want anything to put his comrades in danger, and Bush is a crazy enough MF to do just that.

Looks like gun shows still allow psychos easy access.

"psychos" don't go to gun shows.

Citizens who do are subject to the Federal licensing waiting period in order to run a background check and abide by the law.

However, if you do believe sincerely that anyone can obtain a firearm including "psychos" who are intent upon wreaking bodily harm on innocent civilians, how on earth could you object to those same civilians arming themselves against these "psychos"?

katsiskats @ 114:

As soon as global warming is behind us

I don't claim to know whether human activity has caused or possibly accelerated global warming but in any event, it's not going to go away anytime soon and certainly not in our lifetime.

Global warming is ahead of us, not behind us, and it will outlive all of us.

Yes, its presence will be felt for generations, and I do believe it is anthropogenic in nature. But the more we do to stop it now, the better we will be. When the Pentagon issues a report that says with global warming "war will be a daily feature of life" or whatever it was they said in it, it's time to start moving on up. I'm just glad that the Dems are starting to do it.

By the way, I cringe whenever the Republicans say that 19% or whatever, of people approve of Congress. It's like half of those are Republicans and the other portion are far-lefty Dems and ignoramuses who just know they're always supposed to disapprove of the guv-mint. Thanks again, lefty Dems!

You're Welcome. Even if you are pulling that out of thin air.

OOH Nancy! Merry christmas to you! Thanks for enabling the worst president in history and his crime group to skate away from any law! Hope you have been well compensated! Hope that you are remembered by history for what you have done!

katsiskats @ 129:

Most illegal guns used in crimes that kill people are obtained during burglaries

Your premise is that criminals who use guns to murder their victims obtained them in a previous burglary of a law-abiding citizen who kept a firearm for self-defense?

With your convoluted logic, the solution to gang violence is to disarm every law-abiding citizen because they are the source of the weapons the criminals are using.

You should be grateful that people like me are willing to defend people like you who don't know who your real enemy is.

It is not a premise. It is a statistical fact. Let me think. I am a criminal and i want a gun. Where do i get it? I can't go to the gun store because they will do a background check. I have to buy one on the black market. Where do black market guns come from? Unless you are suggesting that Smith and Wesson is shipping guns out the back door to the local arms dealers i am not sure i understand your complaint with what i have said.

By the way. The three times i was robbed...where the fuck were you?

Flash and the Pan: Psychos On The Street -

http://technohippie.com/geeklog/public_html/mediagallery/media.php?s=200...

katsiskats @ 133:

I am a criminal and i want a gun. Where do i get it? I can’t go to the gun store because they will do a background check.

Same as the gun show dealers. That's my point.

By the way. The three times i was robbed…where the fuck were you?

I don't recall you hiring me to defend you so I'd have to say I was home, secure in my ability to defend myself and my loved ones.

If only you'd called.

You stated:

"You should be grateful that people like me are willing to defend people like you who don’t know who your real enemy is."

I did not see any of you. Glad two, i probably would have been shot.

When citizens sit back and leave government staff to their own devices, the only ones knocking on the doors of power are those with money, seeking greater influence.

It is the people's responsibility to exert their force over the elected government, otherwise, the monied interests get their way all the time.

Simple strategy to reclaim democracy: print 3 copies of your votes at the next election. Let the government make their electronically forged tallies, but give your paper to citizens groups like the ACLU or a news organization like Democracy Now, or set up local counters designated by neighborhoods. When two of the tallies match, but the government's count is way off - you'll know something's fishy.

hey xoites, i just wanted to say happy happy joy joy, i'm verruy grunk and howdy everyone out htere in tv land:)
happy carnicia cornholia boogalooga gooa..
realluy~!'

You miss my point completely. You need both halves of this comment to make sense of it. You seem to have little faith in the human race as a whole. I'm saying we can solve this problem before it gets out of hand. We are that smart when we come together.

Over population is not a problem. Misappropriation of resources is the problem. Throughout Europe, parts of Asia, and other technology based countries the population is decreasing. This will happen to China and India also as their economies turn from subsistence farming and heavy manufacturing to light manufacturing and technology.

xoites defends Constitution @ 113:

DonsBlog @ 110:

We have several more looming on the horizon. Chinese in space, Putin becoming dictator for life, global dimming, genetic plants gone awry, Indian IT consultants invading our shores.

While we'll be dealing with global warming, some solution like seeding the troposphere with sulphur will come along and everyone will forget about it soon enough.

Oh, i seriously doubt they will miss it.

I see. Ignoring it will not change it. We have a lot of catching up to do with a lot of things. Just because there will be more problems (and over population IS a problem, by the way) does not mean back burnering existing problems is a solution or a goal. I don't really see your point. Are you claiming Global Weather Chaos (otherwise known as Global Warmong) is not a problem? If you are you are wrong. But if you are why not just come right out and say it?

I sold my handgun when I moved to the Inglewood area of Los Angeles. I was more afraid of some young gang member stealing it than my needing defense.

On the other hand, when the meth crazed san quentin ex-con drove up to my neighbor's house with a sawed off shotgun, I really wished I had a weapon. Guy was a two time loser with prison terms for making meth and running weapons, yet only received 6 months for that incident. Probably spent less time there than Tommy Chong for selling bongs (same prison in Central California).

But there are two types of guns we're talking here. Those that are used around cities and kept in metropolitan areas, and those used out in the country for hunting and shooting mad dogs.

xoites defends Constitution @ 141:

katsiskats @ 137:

I did not see any of you. Glad two, i probably would have been shot.

Gun control is the ability to identify your target. Why on earth would I shoot you?

I choose to arm myself legally in self-defense. I am required to pass several tests on an annual basis in order to renew my concealed weapon permit. I am the last person who would fire off a random shot. My permit is more sacred to me than my license to drive and I pray to God I never have to use it.

I'm the last person you should fear.

Basically i avoid fear. It helps to keep me from being afraid.

Not sure how many gun owners there are in America. I used to be a sharp shooter but the last time i held a weapon was 1975. Not sure how many car owners there are in this country either, but i have seen them drive. I imagine the ratio of responsible gun owners is about the same as responsible drivers. If i were going to be afraid that would just about do it for me.

Not sure how many car owners there are in this country either, but i have seen them drive....I imagine the ratio of responsible gun owners is about the same as responsible drivers.

Not sure what connection you're claiming between car owners and gun owners.

We can leave it at this:

I have the right to defend myself. I'm a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, I have passed the proscribed concealed weapon course twice and I am fully aware of the responsibility that carrying a lethal weapon entails.

This was no easy decision and it was not undertaken lightly, nor should it be.

I know of no criminal who bothered to apply for the permit and pass the background check and proficiency test in order to carry a lethal weapon.

They don't have to.

And that's why I'm armed.

Competency, responsibiltity, lawfullness. The usual traits people have. Or don’t have.

That's my point. I'm a competent, responsible, lawful gun owner. I play by all the rules and my only desire is to not be a victim. I practice and I have laser grips. With any luck, the only thing I will ever decimate is a paper target.

Hate to break it to people, but attempting to impeach Bush would just be a disaster for Dems politically, it couldn't get done in time, would distract from Dem campaigns, and would come off as pointless grandstanding. Same with attempts to outright defund the war and such.

And we could do with a lot less whining from people with no clue about political realities.