Stayin' with the big story of the day, John Edwards Endorses Drilling for Rielle
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=2538

But Obama ‘Airs’ His Criticism of John Edwards
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=2547

a brief message from the man atop the pyramid

Kucinich or Fiengold for VP,,,,,,,,,,, DONT DO BiDEN,,,,,,,,YOU'LL BE SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

david lynch's rabbits

Ron @ 6:

dan-in-pa @ 4:

Big story of the day should be "Cheney and Feith implicated in forged documents on WH stationary linking Anthrax to Iraq:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tape_Top_CIA_officer_confesses_order_0808....

ALso, don't ever forget that the Niger Yellow cake documents were forged as well, and allegations are out there in the public domain (again ignored by the MSM) that they originated from the office of Vice President:

http://digg.com/politics/Ex_CIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_right_back_to_Cheney

But, but, but Edwards had sex with a woman.

We don't practice polygamy in this country .. it's "illegal" ..

And we arrest anyone being so straightforward and honest as to practice polygamy openly ..

We practice serial monogamy with illicit affairs on the side ..

And act *shocked* when those affairs come to light ..

Ahh .. the insanity of it all !!

I've been thinking about this whole John Edwards affair and I think we need to ask both nominees whether or not they would ever cheat on their sick wife with another women. I'd like to hear John McCain wax nostalgic about how he left his sick wife, Carol McCain in the dust, for his new trophy wife, Cindy! Republicans who are celebrating this story are idiots. Then again, I'm sure they are counting on the Pravda Barbeque Press Stenographers to make this all about Democrats - when its about politicians just like John McCain!

Is anyone else watching the opening ceremonies?

Does anyone else think the US Olympic team in the opening ceremonies looked like a friggin' yacht club? Who the hell designed that outfit?

KC @ 15:

Does anyone else think the US Olympic team in the opening ceremonies looked like a friggin' yacht club? Who the hell designed that outfit?

Pathetic. Embarrassing. Typical.

Expected Kid Rock to be somewhere wearing a flag

If you "miss tricky dick" you must not have lived then. Under his "leadership" right after he called college students bums, we had Kent State followed by Jackson State. He and hoover spyed on countless US citizens, he challenged the entire Constituion by firing the special prosecutor right before he was to be indicted, killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians, unleashed war criminal Kissinger in appointing him Sec of State, and it goes on and on. I felt sick, when before he died, some referred to him as a senior stateman. I also have never really gotten over his pardon when he CLEARLY broke many laws. This country never recovered from that has later presidents pardoned so many criminals like weinberger, north, Mcfarlane, and more.

border fence - sorry not sure how to get this noticed, but a February Add on California Radio McCain said this and MORE - I heard it.

“I've listened and learned,” McCain said in the ad. “As president, I'll hire new border guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately.

“No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges,” McCain said.

still looking for an audio copy - it amazed me when it on on the air

got this from
“I've listened and learned,” McCain said in the ad. “As president, I'll hire new border guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately.

“No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges,” McCain said.

sleeper @ 21:

border fence - sorry not sure how to get this noticed, but a February Add on California Radio McCain said this and MORE - I heard it.

“I've listened and learned,” McCain said in the ad. “As president, I'll hire new border guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately.

“No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges,” McCain said.

still looking for an audio copy - it amazed me when it on on the air

got this from
“I've listened and learned,” McCain said in the ad. “As president, I'll hire new border guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately.

“No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges,” McCain said.

Didn't Bush already get authorization for more Border Patrol and then wouldn't fund them?

Thanks for posting on this....Ahhh Nixon...he looks like such an amateur compared to this Criminal Regime...and I think I might have to steal the bumper sticker for Watergate Summer....( it is so strange..I never thought Bush would be worse than Nixon..as bad as ..but no he is truly worse....)

163 days to go...

MountainMan23 @ 24:

winston @ 19:

If you "miss tricky dick" you must not have lived then. Under his "leadership" right after he called college students bums, we had Kent State followed by Jackson State. He and hoover spyed on countless US citizens, he challenged the entire Constituion by firing the special prosecutor right before he was to be indicted, killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians, unleashed war criminal Kissinger in appointing him Sec of State, and it goes on and on. I felt sick, when before he died, some referred to him as a senior stateman. I also have never really gotten over his pardon when he CLEARLY broke many laws. This country never recovered from that has later presidents pardoned so many criminals like weinberger, north, Mcfarlane, and more.

Nixon was a protege of Senator Prescott Bush.

Check out this photo:

Prescott Bush (on right) and Richard Nixon

More dots to connect.

teh-Y @ 10:

So, something has been burning me up for about a week now. I am looking for a place to rent, here in Central PA, I don't know why. I find I place I like, I has to scan a few papers and send a copy of my drivers licence along with a 500 dollar deposite. I get a replie email back stating that she got the info and she'll get back in touch with me.

Her sig.

"IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!! "

My heart has been in my throat all week, I really like the place but the more I talked to this lady the less I wanted it.
I stopped payment on check and told her I am backing out. I really want to respond to that soooooooo bad.

You can tell her the great majority of Americans (including herself, I'm sure) do neither.

The great majority never serve in the military because it's low pay and hell, they might actually send you to war.

The great majority seem okay to "stand behind" the troops while they remain ill-equiped, overworked, overwrought with physical and mental wounds, yet underfunded in medical and social care.

But she still wants her tax cuts, don't take that away!

Behind the troops my ass.

winston @ 19:

If you "miss tricky dick" you must not have lived then. Under his "leadership" right after he called college students bums, we had Kent State followed by Jackson State. He and hoover spyed on countless US citizens, he challenged the entire Constituion by firing the special prosecutor right before he was to be indicted, killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians, unleashed war criminal Kissinger in appointing him Sec of State, and it goes on and on. I felt sick, when before he died, some referred to him as a senior stateman. I also have never really gotten over his pardon when he CLEARLY broke many laws. This country never recovered from that has later presidents pardoned so many criminals like weinberger, north, Mcfarlane, and more.

Every interview I ever read about Nixon in his last years showed he had no remorse whatsoever. He mentioned several times that the whatergate fiasco was the result of "young, ambitious social reformers out to get him." That's what I remember him saying several times, that people were "out to get him."
A classic paranoid personality disorder.

Mike Malloy's Anti-Obama Rant

I used to be a big fan, but after his McLame endorsement I've given up on this loser.

cowboyneok @ 14:

teh-Y @ 10:

So, something has been burning me up for about a week now. I am looking for a place to rent, here in Central PA, I don't know why. I find I place I like, I has to scan a few papers and send a copy of my drivers licence along with a 500 dollar deposite. I get a replie email back stating that she got the info and she'll get back in touch with me.

Her sig.

"IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!! "

My heart has been in my throat all week, I really like the place but the more I talked to this lady the less I wanted it.
I stopped payment on check and told her I am backing out. I really want to respond to that soooooooo bad.

Well, you are doing yourself a favor because if a Republican is the owner, you can bet the place would need to be totally sanitized. Besides, everyone knows Republicans suck as landlords, and the majority of them that claim to support the troops don't really support them. Republicans in congress think supporting the troops is voting for their friends who's businesses benefit via the Iraq War but vote against the troops and veterans EVERY TIME.

Not just a republican but sold unthinking tool of the Neo-nut Republican's. I would back out too.

ANOTHER LYING PIECE OF TURD POLITICIAN -- John Edwards! OsiSpeaks.com

KYJurisDoctor @ 37:

ANOTHER LYING PIECE OF TURD POLITICIAN -- John Edwards! OsiSpeaks.com

If you are without sin, cast the first stone.

And let's not forget that years after Watergate, when asked what he would have done differently, Nixon replied "I should have burned those tapes." What a guy. Makes ya cry. And I did.

I thought I would add my new favorite photo of our most popular speaker.

Coincidentally, MSN covers both the plunging dollar and Gen Y being impoverished.

Santanner

Andy K Jong Il @ 46:

Am I blind, or has no one on this thread brought up the conflict on the Russian-Georgian border? That's some dangerous shit there, folks.

So is Iraq. The world is a powderkeg. I bet the Chinese are happy to see us not only become indebted to them but also to spend in a hyper-fatalistic fashion of endless war.

not sure if you guys have seen this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmiUaSG4GCI

you can vote for the best why i am a dem/repug in 2008

i have no clue how you vote...but you gotta check out the repug videos

especially the one with a girl singing a mccain campaign song to the tune "i think were alone now" frackin hilarious

she has my vote

she calls the song...a parody

which is funny, cuz a parody usually makes fun of the subject of the song

so either she is absolutely clueless, or she is a dem mole

oh yea, check out the dem vids...especially the one done by the vet...made me cry

KYJurisDoctor @ 37:

ANOTHER LYING PIECE OF TURD POLITICIAN -- John Edwards! OsiSpeaks.com

it's his life and his business...he's not in any public office
i don't give a damn

Sorry 'bout the typos tired. GNA!

Impeach The President

It was Eighteenth Century Italian born historian, Lord Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton who said “Liberty is the prevention of control by others.” Lord Acton further said “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentally of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton’s dictum seems to ring true after over two hundred years.
Given the check that the United States Congress has over the Executive Branch, the president cannot exercise absolute power. If the president does it, it would be with the consent of Congress.
It is important to revisit the reasons President George Bush told the world the United States went to war with Iraq. This is five years later, with over four thousand American troops killed, hundreds committed suicide, thousands more permanently mentally and physically injured and hundreds of monthly suicide attempts. Millions of displaced Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of their innocent compatriots slaughtered.
Immediately following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, most of the world was in sympathy with the United States. The entire United States was united, Republicans, Green Party, Democrats and everyone else. But President Bush squandered a glorious chance to unite the nation after the divisive 2000 Presidential Election results between himself and then Vice President Al Gore.
Shortly after those unfortunate events of September 11, 2001, and for many of the following months, emotional tension in the United States was riding high. Common sense and reason were thrown through the window. In came emotion and some Americans’ ability to reason became cloudy and nonexistent. Most members of the United States Congress became emotional; their sense of reason went to sleep and they gave President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq on a pack of lies. Some people called it a blank check. It was likely some in the United States Congress voted for the war to avoid being called unpatriotic.
It must be recalled that the United States had forces in the hills of Afghanistan months after the nation was attacked. They were searching for the Al Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden, the so-called mastermind behind the attacks on the United States. During early 2008 President Bush was asked whether the troops in Afghanistan were looking for bin Laden, he said he was not thinking about the Al Qaida leader. For some time now there has been a deafening silence about bin Laden. President Bush no longer speaks of catching bin Laden. Is not that odd?
The Bush Administration, including the president repeatedly told the world that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on the United States. It was also known that bin Laden and Hussein were adversaries and if Al Qaida forces were in Iraq they were there without Saddam’s knowledge. Al Qaeda went to Iraq after Saddam was toppled.
President Bush seemed to have had his mind made up to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam long before he became president. Those who followed the 2000 Presidential Election Debates between him and Al Gore would recall his usual obsession that Saddam should disarm among other pronouncements against the Iraqi leader.
The Bush Administration tried desperately to build a case for war with Iraq. At first, he told Saddam to disarm his country of weapons of mass destruction or drastic action would have been taken against him. Saddam repeatedly replied he had no such weapons. A case could have been made that Saddam was playing games with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He expelled the inspection team several times from the country before requested its return. That left some people wondering whether Hussein was destroying sanctioned weapons while the IAEA was out of the country.
But how could Saddam been manufacturing illegal weapons? Nuclear weapons are not small objects that may be placed in someone’s pocket. It should be recalled that between April 1991 and March 19, 2003, immediately before the United States invasion, there were two no fly zones operating over Iraqi airspace. The no fly zones were operated by the United States, Britain and France who later pulled out in 1996. One of the no fly zones was set up north of the thirty sixth parallel to protect the Iraqi Kurdish minority and south of the thirty second parallel to protect the country’s Shiite Muslims from the brutal hands of Saddam, this according to the three countries. In fact, the United States, Britain and France were acting illegally when they set up and maintained the no fly zones as there was nothing stated in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991 authorizing them.
With the constant threat from Washington of an invasion of Iraq and the United States troop build-up, Saddam reopened his country for weapons inspections. Dr. Hans Blix and his team went in search of chemical and biological weapons, while, Dr. Mohammad El-Baradei, head of IAEA, was responsible for finding nuclear weapons. Both Drs. Blix and El-Baradei found no illegal weapons and were still searching and asked for more time to complete their searches, but President Bush was eager to go to war. President Bush asked the weapons inspection team to leave Iraq and that all United States interests should return to the country. Then there was the bombing campaign.
When no illegal weapons were found; after the infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech given by President Bush, the reason for going to war changed. The president told the world that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. He also explained that America was fighting for freedom in Iraq. He remarked that the United States had to fight them there, so there would be no need to fight them in the United States.
The President them blamed faulty intelligence for going to war in Iraq. No one in his administration was fired for that so-called faulty intelligence. Former Central Intelligence Agency, CIA officer Mrs. Valerie Wilson had her cover blown by someone in the White House because her husband spoke truth to power. President Bush said anyone in his administration who blew her cover would be fired. That has not happened.
There are several issues at play here. It is strongly felt that President Bush lied to Congress to start the war in Iraq and that would be an impeachable offence. The president’s reason for invading Iraq kept changing. It is the duty of Congress to investigate with an intension to impeach. It is clear that Iraq did not attack the United States or any other nation. This makes the United States invasion of Iraq illegal and President Bush a war criminal, this according to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. This invasion was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This invasion is a breach of international law. This costly illegal war has bled and continues to bleed billions of dollars from the United States. History may not judge Congress kindly for not impeaching the president and his Vice President Richard Dick Cheney.
The United States invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. It has also made Americans targets wherever the travel outside the United States. America’s credibility in the world has sunk to an all time low. To restore that credibility and to try to ensure that a future United States President may never take the country down this path again; an example should be made of President Bush. Whether or not you are a pacifist, there are times when a nation may go to war, but it should be for a just cause. There are such things as a legal war and an illegal war. The invasion of Iraq is illegal; it is President Bush’s war. It is still not too late for the Congress to take out Articles of Impeachment against both the president and vice president.

Impeach The President

It was Eighteenth Century Italian born historian, Lord Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton who said “Liberty is the prevention of control by others.” Lord Acton further said “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentally of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton’s dictum seems to ring true after over two hundred years.
Given the check that the United States Congress has over the Executive Branch, the president cannot exercise absolute power. If the president does it, it would be with the consent of Congress.
It is important to revisit the reasons President George Bush told the world the United States went to war with Iraq. This is five years later, with over four thousand American troops killed, hundreds committed suicide, thousands more permanently mentally and physically injured and hundreds of monthly suicide attempts. Millions of displaced Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of their innocent compatriots slaughtered.
Immediately following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, most of the world was in sympathy with the United States. The entire United States was united, Republicans, Green Party, Democrats and everyone else. But President Bush squandered a glorious chance to unite the nation after the divisive 2000 Presidential Election results between himself and then Vice President Al Gore.
Shortly after those unfortunate events of September 11, 2001, and for many of the following months, emotional tension in the United States was riding high. Common sense and reason were thrown through the window. In came emotion and some Americans’ ability to reason became cloudy and nonexistent. Most members of the United States Congress became emotional; their sense of reason went to sleep and they gave President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq on a pack of lies. Some people called it a blank check. It was likely some in the United States Congress voted for the war to avoid being called unpatriotic.
It must be recalled that the United States had forces in the hills of Afghanistan months after the nation was attacked. They were searching for the Al Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden, the so-called mastermind behind the attacks on the United States. During early 2008 President Bush was asked whether the troops in Afghanistan were looking for bin Laden, he said he was not thinking about the Al Qaida leader. For some time now there has been a deafening silence about bin Laden. President Bush no longer speaks of catching bin Laden. Is not that odd?
The Bush Administration, including the president repeatedly told the world that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on the United States. It was also known that bin Laden and Hussein were adversaries and if Al Qaida forces were in Iraq they were there without Saddam’s knowledge. Al Qaeda went to Iraq after Saddam was toppled.
President Bush seemed to have had his mind made up to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam long before he became president. Those who followed the 2000 Presidential Election Debates between him and Al Gore would recall his usual obsession that Saddam should disarm among other pronouncements against the Iraqi leader.
The Bush Administration tried desperately to build a case for war with Iraq. At first, he told Saddam to disarm his country of weapons of mass destruction or drastic action would have been taken against him. Saddam repeatedly replied he had no such weapons. A case could have been made that Saddam was playing games with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He expelled the inspection team several times from the country before requested its return. That left some people wondering whether Hussein was destroying sanctioned weapons while the IAEA was out of the country.
But how could Saddam been manufacturing illegal weapons? Nuclear weapons are not small objects that may be placed in someone’s pocket. It should be recalled that between April 1991 and March 19, 2003, immediately before the United States invasion, there were two no fly zones operating over Iraqi airspace. The no fly zones were operated by the United States, Britain and France who later pulled out in 1996. One of the no fly zones was set up north of the thirty sixth parallel to protect the Iraqi Kurdish minority and south of the thirty second parallel to protect the country’s Shiite Muslims from the brutal hands of Saddam, this according to the three countries. In fact, the United States, Britain and France were acting illegally when they set up and maintained the no fly zones as there was nothing stated in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991 authorizing them.
With the constant threat from Washington of an invasion of Iraq and the United States troop build-up, Saddam reopened his country for weapons inspections. Dr. Hans Blix and his team went in search of chemical and biological weapons, while, Dr. Mohammad El-Baradei, head of IAEA, was responsible for finding nuclear weapons. Both Drs. Blix and El-Baradei found no illegal weapons and were still searching and asked for more time to complete their searches, but President Bush was eager to go to war. President Bush asked the weapons inspection team to leave Iraq and that all United States interests should return to the country. Then there was the bombing campaign.
When no illegal weapons were found; after the infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech given by President Bush, the reason for going to war changed. The president told the world that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. He also explained that America was fighting for freedom in Iraq. He remarked that the United States had to fight them there, so there would be no need to fight them in the United States.
The President them blamed faulty intelligence for going to war in Iraq. No one in his administration was fired for that so-called faulty intelligence. Former Central Intelligence Agency, CIA officer Mrs. Valerie Wilson had her cover blown by someone in the White House because her husband spoke truth to power. President Bush said anyone in his administration who blew her cover would be fired. That has not happened.
There are several issues at play here. It is strongly felt that President Bush lied to Congress to start the war in Iraq and that would be an impeachable offence. The president’s reason for invading Iraq kept changing. It is the duty of Congress to investigate with an intension to impeach. It is clear that Iraq did not attack the United States or any other nation. This makes the United States invasion of Iraq illegal and President Bush a war criminal, this according to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. This invasion was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This invasion is a breach of international law. This costly illegal war has bled and continues to bleed billions of dollars from the United States. History may not judge Congress kindly for not impeaching the president and his Vice President Richard Dick Cheney.
The United States invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. It has also made Americans targets wherever the travel outside the United States. America’s credibility in the world has sunk to an all time low. To restore that credibility and to try to ensure that a future United States President may never take the country down this path again; an example should be made of President Bush. Whether or not you are a pacifist, there are times when a nation may go to war, but it should be for a just cause. There are such things as a legal war and an illegal war. The invasion of Iraq is illegal; it is President Bush’s war. It is still not too late for the Congress to take out Articles of Impeachment against both the president and vice president.

Andy K Jong Il @ 54:

odanny @ 49:

Andy K Jong Il @ 46:

Am I blind, or has no one on this thread brought up the conflict on the Russian-Georgian border? That's some dangerous shit there, folks.

So is Iraq. The world is a powderkeg. I bet the Chinese are happy to see us not only become indebted to them but also to spend in a hyper-fatalistic fashion of endless war.

Compared to the potential that this one has, Iraq is nothing. The US invasion of Iraq is a half-assed attempt to control oil. This move by the Russians is to annex its neighbors. Do you know what Russification is? Take control of your neighbor, then populate it with Russians. If, after a while you get kicked out of Estonia, you've got about 40% of Estonia's population that sides with you if your Russia. You can bet your ass that the Baltic states, Ukraine and Belarus are VERY concerned right now. Hell, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Turkey and Slovakia are probably just as concerned, if not for the exact same reason that the former SSRs are.

Look at Russian history since the early years of the Romanov dynasty- around the time of Ivan the Terrible. Russia will expand a bit, then retract by about half of what they last gained. Then the process repeats itself. Generally speaking, Russia has been checked in this time frame by smaller, but much more technically advanced nations. But Russia has something new this time out: MONEY! Money buys the latest techs.

This could be very ugly. VERY ugly.

It's more than a half assed attempt to control oil, and the consequences of these actions are still being felt and will continue to be felt in ways that are not yet determined. The loss of life has yet TBD but the forced migration of 4 million people escaping violence is not, nor can it ever be, called "nothing"

I'm not sure what will become of South Ossetia/Georgia but I do know the neocons have cozied up to Georgia and that U.S. Special Forces were actively training their military. And that never bodes well for anyone, it seems. Anything, or anyone, the neocons support is always suspect in my eyes, even if it is a desperate, fledgling Democracy formerly under the Soviet heel. Poland and Romania have also been taken under the wing of the neoconservatives plans for Eastern Europe, while Belarus remains one of the largest exporter of arms in Europe.

Bush apparently sought out Putin at the Olympics. I'm sure he'll make a convincing, um, argument.

Another nutcase tries to pull an RFK on Obama.

And the worst tragedy of all is that Cheney and Rumsfeld had to wait nearly 30 years for their do over.

odanny @ 61:

Bush apparently sought out Putin at the Olympics. I'm sure he'll make a convincing, um, argument.

At this point the most destructive thing Bush could do to Putin would be to grab him and kiss him on the cheek like Lieberman, and then offer to help him in his fight against Georgia. If I were Putin, I'd probably start screening my calls.

Not a Crook @ 68:

teh-Y @ 10:

So, something has been burning me up for about a week now. I am looking for a place to rent, here in Central PA, I don't know why. I find I place I like, I has to scan a few papers and send a copy of my drivers licence along with a 500 dollar deposite. I get a replie email back stating that she got the info and she'll get back in touch with me.

Her sig.

"IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!! "

My heart has been in my throat all week, I really like the place but the more I talked to this lady the less I wanted it.
I stopped payment on check and told her I am backing out. I really want to respond to that soooooooo bad.

If I were you, I'd respond with something witty and sarcastic just to tick her off. I don't see how a reasoned reply will actually sink in with someone who's so dense they think a slogan is all that's needed to show support.

"Yehaaaw I support the troops", while the troops are actually thinking, "Big f**** deal. How about some decent showers that don't electrocute?".

Let's not be so quick to judge. Just because she has a slogan like that on her signature, 1. it doesn't mean that's ALL she does to show support, and 2. it doesn't mean she's a shallow-assed right wing chickenhawk.

Just because all hypocritical right wing chickenhawks hide behind slogans like that, it doesn't necessarily follow that everybody that uses slogans like that is a hypocritical right wing chickenhawk.

Nixon looks mild compared with the maniacs we have now.

I think if the electorate ever actually found out even 10% of what political parties and leaders did, they would be shocked at the arrogance and lawbreaking. Even the supposed popular political leaders are nothing more than morally bankrupt slimeballs. Face it, regardless of political affiliations, most politicians end up as complete crooks. Why else would a bunch of rich bastards constantly run for office? Boredom? No. Power hungry. Warshington is nothing more than pigs feeding at the trough.

the insanity of it all is surely apt to drive someone on the border line of rational thought over the edge to commit irrational acts.

2/3 of the SCOTUS, every president we've had since sometime in the 1800's, the entire leadership and easily 2/5 of Dems and every Republican (excepting RINO Libertarians like Ron Paul) in congress is an Authoritarian. They all believe that since they make the laws, they are, therefore, above them. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats change the laws before they break them, Republicans break the laws and then change them after the fact.

FISA went down for 1 reason - if Bush goes down, to jail or The Hague or is even forced to stand trial in a real court (not impeachment hearings in Congress), then it sets a precedent for leaders being held accountable for their actions - and that's something those in positions of power never want to see happen. Oh, it's OK for a congressman or maybe even a senator to do a little time for bribery or something similar - but a Speaker? President? VP? Committee Chairman? Secretary? No way. Perhaps, like Bush is, they just don't care about the Law. Perhaps, like I believe Obama is, they're afraid that one day they might violate the Constitution, like Lincoln & FDR did, because they think it's necessary.

The fact is, the people in our government do not see themselves as being elected to "Serve the People", they see themselves as being elected to "Rule the People". Some rule for the good of the people, some rule for themselves and their cronies, but either way the fact is simple: the Constitution is, for all practical purposes, null and void when it comes to the top levels of government - because the only people who can do something about it won't, because it would expose them to justice, regardless of the circumstances. And that's something none of them are ever going to allow.

On the bright side, we still get to vote - no one's appointed to those top, all-powerful positions. Once they get there they're invincible for their term, but they still have to get elected. If we're going to have a pseudo-dictatorship (Presidents get the big things they want - Tax Plans, Foreign Policy, and can influence just about everything else) we can at least do everything we can to make sure we get a benevolent one.

Del Capslock @ 74:

“…call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period…” - Nixon to Chief of Staff Haldeman, June 23, 1972 (six days after the Watergate break-in)

The smoking gun. That's what they had on Nixon that forced the Republicans to jump ship. The power of the executive branch is such that it takes a smoking gun to bring down a President. I agree that the Bush administration is guilty of worse offenses than Nixon, but without a smoking gun they will get away with it.

At this point, I think even with a smoking gun they'd get away with it. Somehow, FOX News and all the Republican sycophants would explain it away through their mental acrobatics as some Democratic plot to besmirch a fine, upstanding, and virtuous president. And then MSM would play up that angle until Britney/Paris/Lohan/Winhouse did something else crazy and that would take over as the top story for that week.

James in Colorado @ 80:

Pericles @ 69:

Not a Crook @ 68:

teh-Y @ 10:

If I were you, I'd respond with something witty and sarcastic just to tick her off. I don't see how a reasoned reply will actually sink in with someone who's so dense they think a slogan is all that's needed to show support.

"Yehaaaw I support the troops", while the troops are actually thinking, "Big f**** deal. How about some decent showers that don't electrocute?".

Let's not be so quick to judge. Just because she has a slogan like that on her signature, 1. it doesn't mean that's ALL she does to show support, and 2. it doesn't mean she's a shallow-assed right wing chickenhawk.

Just because all hypocritical right wing chickenhawks hide behind slogans like that, it doesn't necessarily follow that everybody that uses slogans like that is a hypocritical right wing chickenhawk.

Also, if you think about it, that slogan would work for left-wingers too calling out chicken hawks. Maybe not as likely, but it is a possibility. I use logic like that when I confront College Republican chicken hawks considering I served and my biggest beef is that the defense budget is SO full of waste that it actually needs to be CUT! These supposed "fiscal conservatives" hate anyone suggesting we cut the defense budget, even due to waste. Occasionally I'll find one that also served and who knows exactly what I'm talking about.

This is why I think everyone should serve for at least two years. Then all these chicken hawks and their brainless supporters would see just how much money the defense department wastes and then they'd have a better understanding of what it takes to TRULY support the troops!

Waste? These supposed fiscal conservatives are part of the biggest socialist banking bailout in the history of the United States. Not to mention that every budget from both Dems and Repugs is full of pork barrel additives. Waste? Take ANY and ALL federal and state budgets and cut the "waste" out, and you would probably see a tax cut of 50%. That goes for any nation really.
Hell, we had a Prime Minister up here that gave over 3.5 million dollars of taxpayer's money to a canoe factory in his riding at election time. They build canoes. Apparently, very few canoes. Don'tcha just live how frugal politicians really are?

James in Colorado @ 82:

We need to quit enforcing this victim mentality on ourselves that we MUST re-elect incumbents or else the world will fall apart. 97% incumbency rate is idiotic for any nation, particularly ours.

Hooray!!!! I say, bumperstickers for everyone that say RE-ELECT NOBODY!

odanny @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 54:

odanny @ 49:

Andy K Jong Il @ 46:

So is Iraq. The world is a powderkeg. I bet the Chinese are happy to see us not only become indebted to them but also to spend in a hyper-fatalistic fashion of endless war.

Compared to the potential that this one has, Iraq is nothing. The US invasion of Iraq is a half-assed attempt to control oil. This move by the Russians is to annex its neighbors. Do you know what Russification is? Take control of your neighbor, then populate it with Russians. If, after a while you get kicked out of Estonia, you've got about 40% of Estonia's population that sides with you if your Russia. You can bet your ass that the Baltic states, Ukraine and Belarus are VERY concerned right now. Hell, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Turkey and Slovakia are probably just as concerned, if not for the exact same reason that the former SSRs are.

Look at Russian history since the early years of the Romanov dynasty- around the time of Ivan the Terrible. Russia will expand a bit, then retract by about half of what they last gained. Then the process repeats itself. Generally speaking, Russia has been checked in this time frame by smaller, but much more technically advanced nations. But Russia has something new this time out: MONEY! Money buys the latest techs.

This could be very ugly. VERY ugly.

It's more than a half assed attempt to control oil, and the consequences of these actions are still being felt and will continue to be felt in ways that are not yet determined. The loss of life has yet TBD but the forced migration of 4 million people escaping violence is not, nor can it ever be, called "nothing"

I'm not sure what will become of South Ossetia/Georgia but I do know the neocons have cozied up to Georgia and that U.S. Special Forces were actively training their military. And that never bodes well for anyone, it seems. Anything, or anyone, the neocons support is always suspect in my eyes, even if it is a desperate, fledgling Democracy formerly under the Soviet heel. Poland and Romania have also been taken under the wing of the neoconservatives plans for Eastern Europe, while Belarus remains one of the largest exporter of arms in Europe.

Bush apparently sought out Putin at the Olympics. I'm sure he'll make a convincing, um, argument.

It's sorta dangerous, but the Russian Army would be lucky enough not to hit its feet when it shoots. The Bushites cannot spare any troops out of our two wars to fight in Georgia, much less airplanes or anything of that nature. I think this is the start of Russian Imperialism Mk. 2 (the USSR is Mk. 1, the Late version). Regardless, no good ending to Russian imperialism, but quite a few bad ones. As a history major, I can be willing to bet the Georgians chose this specific time to attack South Ossetia and recover their secessionist "friends" because both the US and Russia would have the Beijing Olympics on their minds.

General_Rennenkampf @ 86:

ConcernedCanuck @ 73:

I think if the electorate ever actually found out even 10% of what political parties and leaders did, they would be shocked at the arrogance and lawbreaking. Even the supposed popular political leaders are nothing more than morally bankrupt slimeballs. Face it, regardless of political affiliations, most politicians end up as complete crooks. Why else would a bunch of rich bastards constantly run for office? Boredom? No. Power hungry. Warshington is nothing more than pigs feeding at the trough.

So's Ottawa. So's Mexico City. So's Bogota. So's London. So's Paris. So's Tokyo. So's Moscow. So's Kinshasha. Government everywhere is pigs feeding at the trough, just most government people are smart enough to avoid getting caught.

Avoid it? They openly flaunt it, the electorate yawns and votes them back in again. Then you have family monopolies on senatorial and congressional seats. There are few nations that resemble the US in this mentality, except maybe jolly old England. Very few have the exact same senator/elected rep for decades. Case in point? Senator Kennedy. Not trying to poke fingers at him, because there are far worse people to fill his shoes, but when was the last time he wasn't referred to as Senator Kennedy? Or McCain? How many years has he been a senator? How often are people referred to as junior senators (Obama)? What the hell is a junior senator? One that HAS NOT been a senator for like forever? It's ridiculous really. Term limits on ALL political jobs.

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

General_Rennenkampf @ 86:

ConcernedCanuck @ 73:

I think if the electorate ever actually found out even 10% of what political parties and leaders did, they would be shocked at the arrogance and lawbreaking. Even the supposed popular political leaders are nothing more than morally bankrupt slimeballs. Face it, regardless of political affiliations, most politicians end up as complete crooks. Why else would a bunch of rich bastards constantly run for office? Boredom? No. Power hungry. Warshington is nothing more than pigs feeding at the trough.

So's Ottawa. So's Mexico City. So's Bogota. So's London. So's Paris. So's Tokyo. So's Moscow. So's Kinshasha. Government everywhere is pigs feeding at the trough, just most government people are smart enough to avoid getting caught.

Avoid it? They openly flaunt it, the electorate yawns and votes them back in again. Then you have family monopolies on senatorial and congressional seats. There are few nations that resemble the US in this mentality, except maybe jolly old England. Very few have the exact same senator/elected rep for decades. Case in point? Senator Kennedy. Not trying to poke fingers at him, because there are far worse people to fill his shoes, but when was the last time he wasn't referred to as Senator Kennedy? Or McCain? How many years has he been a senator? How often are people referred to as junior senators (Obama)? What the hell is a junior senator? One that HAS NOT been a senator for like forever? It's ridiculous really. Term limits on ALL political jobs.

Eh....aristocracies exist in Mexico and ya'lls country as well. Just because it's an aristocracy of wealth doesn't cancel the fact that yes, Virginia, it's an aristocracy. I think that the US may be a little more raw with our aristocrats, but if you think Ottawa and Mexico City are without them...

ConcernedCanuck @ 90:

General_Rennenkampf @ 89:

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

General_Rennenkampf @ 86:

Avoid it? They openly flaunt it, the electorate yawns and votes them back in again. Then you have family monopolies on senatorial and congressional seats. There are few nations that resemble the US in this mentality, except maybe jolly old England. Very few have the exact same senator/elected rep for decades. Case in point? Senator Kennedy. Not trying to poke fingers at him, because there are far worse people to fill his shoes, but when was the last time he wasn't referred to as Senator Kennedy? Or McCain? How many years has he been a senator? How often are people referred to as junior senators (Obama)? What the hell is a junior senator? One that HAS NOT been a senator for like forever? It's ridiculous really. Term limits on ALL political jobs.

Eh....aristocracies exist in Mexico and ya'lls country as well. Just because it's an aristocracy of wealth doesn't cancel the fact that yes, Virginia, it's an aristocracy. I think that the US may be a little more raw with our aristocrats, but if you think Ottawa and Mexico City are without them...

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. The only major difference is your political monopolies trot around the globe bragging about the great democracy they continue to enjoy, as Senator SoAndSo is "re-elected" for his 19th straight year in office. It would actually be hilarious if not so pathetically sad.

Oh, and here I'm not disagreeing with you, the concept of "democracy," US-style is much closer to the Roman Republic of 2,000 years ago than the people of today will ever admit. Here, we don't quite seem to understand what "Demokratiea" means, but unfortunately, because we're so damn big and strong even today, we tend to ignore that US elections are hardly as free as Mexican elections prior to 2000. And before they had Presidente Fox, their elections weren't all that free.

ConcernedCanuck @ 92:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

ConcernedCanuck @ 90:

General_Rennenkampf @ 89:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. The only major difference is your political monopolies trot around the globe bragging about the great democracy they continue to enjoy, as Senator SoAndSo is "re-elected" for his 19th straight year in office. It would actually be hilarious if not so pathetically sad.

Oh, and here I'm not disagreeing with you, the concept of "democracy," US-style is much closer to the Roman Republic of 2,000 years ago than the people of today will ever admit. Here, we don't quite seem to understand what "Demokratiea" means, but unfortunately, because we're so damn big and strong even today, we tend to ignore that US elections are hardly as free as Mexican elections prior to 2000. And before they had Presidente Fox, their elections weren't all that free.

True enough. Rome thought they could conquer other nations and install democracy through force as well. Wonder whatever became of Rome.......oh wait....Italy is now the most dysfunctional government on the globe.

No, Italy's not the most dysfunctional government on the Globe, in Eurasia, maybe, but I think between Washington DC and Mexico City, North America takes the cake.

However, I think that Italian incompetence in government has as much to do with that would-be fascist Berlusconi in Rome as it does with Italian history.

bush=nixon without a brain

enigma4ever @ 25:

Thanks for posting on this....Ahhh Nixon...he looks like such an amateur compared to this Criminal Regime...and I think I might have to steal the bumper sticker for Watergate Summer....( it is so strange..I never thought Bush would be worse than Nixon..as bad as ..but no he is truly worse....)

163 days to go...

Nixon was the puppet master, from being Eisenhower's VP and brain (generals make lousy politicians), to hovering in the background in the sixties, to POTUS then disgrace then back to hovering and shadow plots and puppeteering.

Nixon had presidential and other power 1952 to his death in 1994, his legacy lived on after his death in Chimpy...

ferrofluid @ 98:

J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, one hundred years of combined evil in office.

Yeah...if American democracy had been any weaker in the 40s, Hoover might well have come to rival Beria or Himmler.

General_Rennenkampf @ 99:

ferrofluid @ 98:

J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, one hundred years of combined evil in office.

Yeah...if American democracy had been any weaker in the 40s, Hoover might well have come to rival Beria or Himmler.

and luckily for us we know from modern history, the FBI was and is a paragon of virtue, and impartial to the 1000th degree.

ferrofluid @ 101:

General_Rennenkampf @ 99:

ferrofluid @ 98:

J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, one hundred years of combined evil in office.

Yeah...if American democracy had been any weaker in the 40s, Hoover might well have come to rival Beria or Himmler.

and luckily for us we know from modern history, the FBI was and is a paragon of virtue, and impartial to the 1000th degree.

I never said anything like that. Hoover was simply constrained by a few legal niceties that didn't apply to either Himmler, Heydrich, Yezhov, or Beria. Without those restraints, methinks ol' Herb would have been much worse than in reality, and in reality, he was one nasty SOB.

ferrofluid @ 100:

ConcernedCanuck @ 92:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

ConcernedCanuck @ 90:

Oh, and here I'm not disagreeing with you, the concept of "democracy," US-style is much closer to the Roman Republic of 2,000 years ago than the people of today will ever admit. Here, we don't quite seem to understand what "Demokratiea" means, but unfortunately, because we're so damn big and strong even today, we tend to ignore that US elections are hardly as free as Mexican elections prior to 2000. And before they had Presidente Fox, their elections weren't all that free.

True enough. Rome thought they could conquer other nations and install democracy through force as well. Wonder whatever became of Rome.......oh wait....Italy is now the most dysfunctional government on the globe.

because they had a weak internal sense of identity and let outside TLAs play dirty politics and spy games in their country.
Rule one of 'sensible government' is keeping hostile and meddling foreign spies (and ulterior motive lobbyists) out of your country.

Italy is not a natural entity. Nor is Germany. Those two nations spent the vast majority of their history divided, not united. Rome provided one rare instance of unification for Italia, and the Nazis, oddly enough, were the first German government to actually create a unified Germany by smashing up the old German states that had endured under the Kaisers. Weird, isn't it? Hitler's government smashed up so much but in the process in both West and East Germany ended up creating a unity that even under Kaiser Wilhelms I and II had not existed. Anyhow, Germany and Italy are aberrations, not the norm for those regions.

Note-Not apologizing for the Nazis, my source for my statements on German unification come from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in the section related to early Nazi rule.

ConcernedCanuck @ 92:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

ConcernedCanuck @ 90:

General_Rennenkampf @ 89:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. The only major difference is your political monopolies trot around the globe bragging about the great democracy they continue to enjoy, as Senator SoAndSo is "re-elected" for his 19th straight year in office. It would actually be hilarious if not so pathetically sad.

Oh, and here I'm not disagreeing with you, the concept of "democracy," US-style is much closer to the Roman Republic of 2,000 years ago than the people of today will ever admit. Here, we don't quite seem to understand what "Demokratiea" means, but unfortunately, because we're so damn big and strong even today, we tend to ignore that US elections are hardly as free as Mexican elections prior to 2000. And before they had Presidente Fox, their elections weren't all that free.

True enough. Rome thought they could conquer other nations and install democracy through force as well. Wonder whatever became of Rome.......oh wait....Italy is now the most dysfunctional government on the globe.

OK, being a Roman historian I need to counter some stuff said here.

First, Rome under the Republic looks NOTHING like America today. Rome under the Emperor, perhaps. Bush strikes me as slightly Caliguan in his temperament. Also, Rome (the Republic) did not impose any of it's values on its subject nations other than forcing them to pay tribute. Under the Empire, however, Rome often forced "client kings" on the subjugated populations (much as we did in Central America and the Middle East/Asia), and forced the subject populations to adopt worship of the Emperors.

So overall, America is more like the Roman Empire rather than the Roman Republic. Otherwise, the rest of what you say does hold true.

Ideally, I wish we didn't have an executive branch. Or we could have had Consuls like Rome, I suppose that would have been fine as well. I don't think the founders intended our Presidents to be as powerful as they have become over the last two centuries. Also, my biggest beef with the whole "Commander-in-Chief" thing is, knowing that the Founders were big Roman historians too, they only created Commanders-in-Chief and Dictators by decree of the Senate, and even then, only for a short period of time to specifically take care of some riot, insurrection, or invasion immediately threatening the City.

So my reading of the first and second articles is that the president shouldn't become "Commander-in-Chief" until the militia of the several states is called into Federal service (through a declaration of war or for a short period of time to repel an invasion or quell an insurrection) , as there was never intended to be a standing army. Unfortunately, we have a standing army now, so we have a perpetual Commander-in-Chief and thus, de facto, are in a constant state of war.

General_Rennenkampf @ 106:

ferrofluid @ 104:

Thats what happens when US political parties and TLAs hire Canadian and foreign PR firms to do American politics.
SNAFU

Hey, don't diss Canada! They actually get some stuff done right! With a climate that only a goddammned penguin would love!

Are you dissing penguins now? Beware of penguins!

~ doo be doo be doooo ~

James in Colorado @ 107:

General_Rennenkampf @ 106:

ferrofluid @ 104:

Thats what happens when US political parties and TLAs hire Canadian and foreign PR firms to do American politics.
SNAFU

Hey, don't diss Canada! They actually get some stuff done right! With a climate that only a goddammned penguin would love!

Are you dissing penguins now? Beware of penguins!

~ doo be doo be doooo ~

Penguins don't live in this hemisphere, so I don't have to worry about it, do I?

And as another historian, I must dispute your conclusion on the Republic being less prone to spread worship of Iupiter, Iuno, and Mars. They had no hesitations whatsoever in doing that, and colonized regions for the express purpose of "civilizing" them in a manner quite remniscent of the Soviets and Tsarists or the Manifest Destiny era of our history. It would have been folly for them to have done otherwise in the time of the Republic's expansion.

True, they did spread the worship of their gods, but they didn't IMPOSE them is my point. Also, Romans adopted a lot of foreign gods as well. Most of the Roman pantheon, after all, came from Greece. The Romans well understood (possibly from earlier history like Cyrus) that imposing ideas on a population is a sure fire way to piss them off, but allowing ideological (or religious) tolerance is a better route to ensure a pacified and subjugated nation.

The Roman Republic also does resemble the US Republic far more than you want to admit. Rome's legislature was the model for the Virginia Plan, the model of the Constitution we adopted. The House of Representatives is the Tribucinian Assembly, the Senate, of course, is made of aristocrats not that liable to the people, and the President is but a Consul with a term of 4 years, as opposed to 1 year.

True, I completely agree that the US Founders created our government based on the Republic of Rome. My point was that we, contemporaneously, resemble the Empire, rather than the Republic. What with our ineffective legislature used only to approve the actions of our executive, and our executive caught up in his own hubris, creating a personality cult that opposes all dissent, and going off on expensive and expansive wars to benefit his own ego.

The Founders, you are correct in saying this, did despise the idea of a standing army, not out of desire to avoid perpetual war as much as because a standing army is too dangerous for a civilian government and damned expensive, to boot. But the US system is strongly based on the Roman Republic, in both good and bad aspects.

Agreed, but one of the other oppositions to a standing army, according to the Federalist Papers I believe, was that with a powerful executive and a weak legislature, it would invite the sort of foreign interventionism and adventurism we see today.

General_Rennenkampf @ 112:

James in Colorado @ 111:

True, they did spread the worship of their gods, but they didn't IMPOSE them is my point. Also, Romans adopted a lot of foreign gods as well. Most of the Roman pantheon, after all, came from Greece. The Romans well understood (possibly from earlier history like Cyrus) that imposing ideas on a population is a sure fire way to piss them off, but allowing ideological (or religious) tolerance is a better route to ensure a pacified and subjugated nation.

True, I completely agree that the US Founders created our government based on the Republic of Rome. My point was that we, contemporaneously, resemble the Empire, rather than the Republic. What with our ineffective legislature used only to approve the actions of our executive, and our executive caught up in his own hubris, creating a personality cult that opposes all dissent, and going off on expensive and expansive wars to benefit his own ego.

Agreed, but one of the other oppositions to a standing army, according to the Federalist Papers I believe, was that with a powerful executive and a weak legislature, it would invite the sort of foreign interventionism and adventurism we see today.

1) They may have understood it, but they sure didn't practice it that well with Bacchanalians or Judeans. The Roman Republic was as much a force of cultural imposition as the Empire was, after all, once the Republic controlled all of today's Italy, much less the region that later became the Empire, it was an empire, it just lacked the emperor to complete the whole picture. Considering that much of Europe prior to the rise of Rome were tribal peoples about the level of the Indians of the West in the 1880s, with the Republic and Empire as predominant as the US was in the 1880s, and that within a few hundred years after the West went kaput, the first states emerged, the Roman Republic was just as responsible for that as the Empire was. And the Republic was prone to military adventurism as well, just ask the Carthaginians or the Samnites.

2) No, I'd say we're more like Sulla-era Rome than Julio-Claudian era. The time is approaching for some enterprising Sulla to step in and restore the order that Bush has effectively bugdusted.

3) The main reason the Founders objected to that were 1) the US of their generation had no military capacity to even dream of such a thing, so attempting it might well have destroyed the US as a nation, and 2) the Indians were going to get the brunt of interventionism on a scale that made King Philip's War or the French and Indian War look positively heartwarming. Instead of foreign interventionism outside of North America, you had foreign adventurism against Indians, Canada, and Mexico. And that with no standing army like we have today.

On your point about Sulla, I wish he had a Sulla. But unless our modern day Sulla sold out to the corporations and promised the status quo, he (or she) wouldn't get more than a passing mention versus the "Mainstream" (read: Corporate) candidates. Specifically I am thinking of people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who I think are good models of latter day Sullas.

Unfortunately, our Sulla may have to come about outside the "democratic" process. Whether this means revolution, military coup, or invasion from the outside, I don't know. Personally I envision a catastrophic collapse that forces us to start over from scratch after a period of tribulations. It would be nice if people cared enough about politics to call a new Constitutional Convention maybe.

General_Rennenkampf @ 114:

James in Colorado @ 113:

General_Rennenkampf @ 112:

James in Colorado @ 111:

1) They may have understood it, but they sure didn't practice it that well with Bacchanalians or Judeans. The Roman Republic was as much a force of cultural imposition as the Empire was, after all, once the Republic controlled all of today's Italy, much less the region that later became the Empire, it was an empire, it just lacked the emperor to complete the whole picture. Considering that much of Europe prior to the rise of Rome were tribal peoples about the level of the Indians of the West in the 1880s, with the Republic and Empire as predominant as the US was in the 1880s, and that within a few hundred years after the West went kaput, the first states emerged, the Roman Republic was just as responsible for that as the Empire was. And the Republic was prone to military adventurism as well, just ask the Carthaginians or the Samnites.

2) No, I'd say we're more like Sulla-era Rome than Julio-Claudian era. The time is approaching for some enterprising Sulla to step in and restore the order that Bush has effectively bugdusted.

3) The main reason the Founders objected to that were 1) the US of their generation had no military capacity to even dream of such a thing, so attempting it might well have destroyed the US as a nation, and 2) the Indians were going to get the brunt of interventionism on a scale that made King Philip's War or the French and Indian War look positively heartwarming. Instead of foreign interventionism outside of North America, you had foreign adventurism against Indians, Canada, and Mexico. And that with no standing army like we have today.

On your point about Sulla, I wish he had a Sulla. But unless our modern day Sulla sold out to the corporations and promised the status quo, he (or she) wouldn't get more than a passing mention versus the "Mainstream" (read: Corporate) candidates. Specifically I am thinking of people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who I think are good models of latter day Sullas.

Unfortunately, our Sulla may have to come about outside the "democratic" process. Whether this means revolution, military coup, or invasion from the outside, I don't know. Personally I envision a catastrophic collapse that forces us to start over from scratch after a period of tribulations. It would be nice if people cared enough about politics to call a new Constitutional Convention maybe.

Sulla did come about outside the traditional Roman government, like Caesar after him, the guy took charge with his own army. And Sulla, unfortunately, made the rise of some sort of autocracy inevitable, once he revealed the secret of Republic, that a Consul could be made with a private army.

James in Colorado @ 116:

Sulla did come about outside the traditional Roman government, like Caesar after him, the guy took charge with his own army. And Sulla, unfortunately, made the rise of some sort of autocracy inevitable, once he revealed the secret of Republic, that a Consul could be made with a private army.

I had a response and it disappeared... User error I guess :D

I was saying that Sulla didn't come about outside of the republican process, as he was appointed by the Senate. What I find odd about the appointment is that it was for an indefinite term, rather than the typical 6 months.

The reason you find it odd is that Sulla was proto-Caesar. His resignation provoked a lot of surprise and wonder among the Romans, but all the same, he was setting up for dictatorship...and then just gave it all away for some strange reason, which led to the First Triumvirate, the Civil Wars, and then Augustus.

Ron @ 6:

dan-in-pa @ 4:

Big story of the day should be "Cheney and Feith implicated in forged documents on WH stationary linking Anthrax to Iraq:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tape_Top_CIA_officer_confesses_order_0808....

ALso, don't ever forget that the Niger Yellow cake documents were forged as well, and allegations are out there in the public domain (again ignored by the MSM) that they originated from the office of Vice President:

http://digg.com/politics/Ex_CIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_right_back_to_Cheney

But, but, but Edwards had sex with a woman.

And, just as with the Jose Padilla "story", the Edwards affair "simmered" for two years, suddenly to explode in the media just as this administration needs another, "look, over here, something shiny!" distraction.

And you have to love a media that will act as if McCain's campaign is taking the high road for not trashing Edwards without ever mentioning that McCain also cheated on - and in fact left - a wife who was suffering horribly.

odanny @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 54:

odanny @ 49:

Andy K Jong Il @ 46:

It's more than a half assed attempt to control oil, and the consequences of these actions are still being felt and will continue to be felt in ways that are not yet determined. The loss of life has yet TBD but the forced migration of 4 million people escaping violence is not, nor can it ever be, called "nothing"

I'm not sure what will become of South Ossetia/Georgia but I do know the neocons have cozied up to Georgia and that U.S. Special Forces were actively training their military. And that never bodes well for anyone, it seems. Anything, or anyone, the neocons support is always suspect in my eyes, even if it is a desperate, fledgling Democracy formerly under the Soviet heel. Poland and Romania have also been taken under the wing of the neoconservatives plans for Eastern Europe, while Belarus remains one of the largest exporter of arms in Europe.

Bush apparently sought out Putin at the Olympics. I'm sure he'll make a convincing, um, argument.

Yeah, great, talk to Putin, the latest in what is, for all intents and purposes, a string of Russian autocrats that goes back more than 500 years.

And, yes, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is about as half-assed as that of Vietnam. Snce when does "surge" mean to draw troops back to one big protected spot in the midst of the capital?

And, BTW, Georgia has oil. Lots of oil. Germany's Army Group South made a huge push to get those oilfields in '42, and if the Soviets hadn't succeeded at Stalingrad, the Nazis would have had that oil. Take a look at Transcaucasia (yeah, the borders in this map aren't exact today, but look at what's there). The area was under Russian control from the early 19th century through the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

And because the neocons are shady doesn't mean that Putin is some beacon of virtue, does it? Putin and the Russian petrogarchs have shaken down Europe at least twice since Putin took power by threatening to cut off the supply of natural gas. Belarus sells weapons, yes, but they're the weapons from the old Soviet armory. And if Poland and Romania have been taken in by the neocons or NATO, it will be up to the neocons or NATO to defend them or let them be swallowed up by Moscow.

"Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trouble with Nixon is that he's a serious politics junkie. He's totally hooked and like any other junkie, he's a bummer to have around, especially as President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosones that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All we have to do is get out and vote, while it's still legal, and we will wash those crooked warmongers out of the White House."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.liberalavenger.com/2005/02/hunter-s-thompson-on-nixons-death....

bullfrog @ 8:

i STILL don't miss nixon.

in fact, i daresay america collectively won't miss any of the '63 junta when their rotting corpses are being devoured by maggots.

I'm with you. I remember those days only too well. Nixon was just a much smarter man than W. Every bit the sociopath our present prez is.

The Shock Doctrine

If you've already read this, you know of its importance.

If you have not read this, you must.

Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace, in lieu of being impeached, was a major embarrassment for "law and order" Republicans. Heaven forbid if another such embarrassment were to occur.

So, in the 1990s, the Republicans spent years trying to embarrass Democrats through constant harassment of President Bill Clinton, leveling false charge after false charge against him and other members of his administration, claiming numerous laws had been broken.

Now, we have a Republican president and vice-president who have actually broken law after law after law, all in pursuit of their crazed "permanent Republican majority," essentially turning our federal government into some kind of right-wing Fascist horror show.

If anyone deserves impeachment, Bush and Cheney do.

And yet, certain Democrats in leadership positions in Congress don't want to do anything to embarrass Republicans...again.

I admit that the culture of corruption, deceit and torture Republicans are doing plenty ot embarrass themselves, but what Bush and Cheney have done definitely rises to the level of impeachable offenses, and not of the misdemeanor kind. High crimes have become the trademark of the Bush/Cheney mal-admnistrations, with their blatant attempts to ABORT our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the "rule of law," the separation of church and state, and any federal statutes standing in the way of their packing as much of our federal government as possible with their Fascist Republican friends and family members.

Bush and Cheney should have both been impeached after 9/11. Then after starting a war based on lies in March 2003. Then after they participated in outing a covert CIA officer. Then after Hurricane Katrina. And now after all the evidence that is surfacing of all the criminal acts committed since they've been in office.

And yet, after the impeachment bar was lowered in the 1990s in an attempt to "get" President Bill Clinton, the impeachment bar has been raised, apparently, to such a high relative position that one has to wonder what exactly any future president would have to do to deserve impeachment, like Bush and Cheney definitely deserve and have deserved for many years.

I just sent this to Pelosi:

"In light of Ron Suskind's revelation about the forged documents that misled our country into WAR, it is undeniable that this administration has committed the highest crime possible in lying our country into an unnecessary war for profit.

On your appearance on "The View" (where you were touting your new book, ironically about empowering women) you wanted someone to explain proof of how the Bush administration committed a crime.

Read Victory Bugliosi's book, it outlines a very clear legal argument.

Your lack of leadership on this most important issue is a disgrace. It is not a partisan issue, it a CONSTITUTIONAL one. I suggest you read your book and learn to USE YOUR POWER and immediately begin holding hearings on these crimes. NO MATTER that this is an election year. You were NOT elected to win future elections, you are supposed to be UPHOLDING THE LAW.

WHY DON'T YOU STEP ASIDE if you aren't going to do your job, so that someone who is prepared to do it will know the Power of the Speaker?"

Can *ANYONE* get thru to "The Enabler?"

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100