What is the point in having a Democratic majority in Congress, and a Democratic president?

Isn't the point in winning those seats the ability to move the country in the direction of a Democratic world view?

For example, why do we have to "reach across the aisle" and compromise on every damned thing? Why would a Democratic majority not have one single-payer advocate at the table during the health care hearings? Why would we give Conyers a pass for saying he's going to depose Rove and Miers, and then not scream bloody murder when he doesn't do it? Why hasn't Congress already taken up legislation doing away with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Why did we scream bloody murder when GWB had a policy of indefinite detention for prisoners at GITMO, but don't scream bloody murder when President Obama announces the same kind of policy? Why did we demand AG Mukasey put torturers on trial, but don't seem to be animated by the fact that, so far, AG Holder doesn't seem to want to, either. And, why aren't we upset that President Obama doesn't seem to want to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their torture policies...wanting to look ahead, rather than "relitigate the past," which, BTW, hasn't yet been litigated?

Is winning the election for the Democrats more important than governing as Democrats? Yes, I know that some of the things I have referenced are politically very tricky. But, does politics have to trump policy all the time?

Just some questions I keep asking myself.

We tried that. Didn't work. This is better. Doing the right thing is better, even if some of "your own" don't get it.

:thumbsup:

We must maintain the illusion of choice. It's a simple strategy that's worked for quite some time.

And :thumbsup: for DK!

so I think he might have been on to something.
:kick: & R

We've actually discussed the possibility of just getting to Europe and becoming illegal aliens ourselves.

And we the people are no longer invited to the party...

ReFlub Lite anyone?

.... but try to remember how little influence Dems had in the last 8 years. Why is it that even with commensurately low representation by numbers of Republicans, WE don't get that level of control?

Look at our SCOTUS pick. This person is NOT a liberal/progressive, she is a stone cold centrist. Which centrist (except Souter by accident) was appointed by a Rep?

People fail to understand that nothing gets done with "centrism". Look at all we take for granted that we wouldn't have had in the first place if it were left to centrism. Was the New Deal forged from centrism? Hell no! Civil Rights? Hell no!

Unfamiliar to many, sure, but it's the right thing to do.

taking the high road? Bullshit. It's called laying down and letting ourselves be used as doormats.

It's not over, Obama hasn't laid down anything. What's off the table? You just don't get it. You have clearly missed the game off chess... put the checkers away and play chess fcol! Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing. If you are laying down, go for it. I'm not seeing anyone who gets it laying down and giving up.

been there, done that... and will do again.

I guess moral clarity is not a trait that politicians have, or for that matter many Muricans

Whatever. I'll :hug: you anyway:)

So you think Obama has given up and hasn't done enough so far? Frankly, I'm surprised at this coming from you, nadinbrzezinski. I thought you had more faith than that.

I think he's doing the best he can with what he has, and as time goes on, he will have more resources and more power.

Looking forward is a good thing. Really. It is. All this crap didn't fall on us overnight, and I think it's only rational to believe that it will take far longer than a scant 100 days to right the horrible wrongs. I never believed he was a "super negro" and that is how I feel people are behaving.

and as is, yes, looking forwards is code for sweeping under the damn fucking rug.

The empire will do what the empire will do..

And as is I elect representatives, not leaders... very important difference.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Insults? And you have the nerve to question my intellect. Priceless!

Not even a nice try, just failure.

"Not even a nice try, just failure."

And I bet, with you as sole arbiter of the outcome of your differences with other posters, that you are batting 1.000, no?

You sound so very much like a recent historical figure, the "Decider". He hit 1.000, also.

is worthy. Now that is priceless.

on any fucking politician. Anybody who pays attention for five seconds knows they can be trusted as far as you can throw them. Lord knows I am not that strong... so the distance will be fairly short.

He has to break promises to keep them! He has a secret plan - like McCain on Iraq and Nixon on Vietnam. Just be patient for the next 4 or 8 years! Maybe he will change his mind again on tribunals or health care or .....

Why do otherwise respectable DU'ers race bait?

Faith in a politician is inappropriate.

You are right, the President seems to be saving up his political capital.

The overnight argument does not apply to every failing.


Stop making excuses, it sounds weak.

Oh, my GOD! It's President Ford!

:wtf: these posts are delusional.

f c o l ???

It's funny really, how a typo can so easily undermine one's tone of superiority. One typo and you sound like a tinfoil hatter with Cassandra-like visions of a coming future which will legitimatize the rosy tinted, before-the fact, hindsight explanations that you like to describe with the chess metaphor.


:tinfoilhat: ... :woohoo: ... :tinfoilhat:

FCOL = For Crying Out Loud


That is all the edification I can offer you at the moment... no, wait, there's more... know wtf (what the fuck) you are talking about before you try to put the smackdown on someone.

Parece que no hablo <<text>> tan bueno como ti... Lo siento.

Por casualidad, que piensas de la idea de usar letras mayusculas para tus acronimos, como es mas que nada el acuerdo en ingles?...

FCOL, if Juniper had used capital letters for her acronyms it probably would have cut down on the confusion. I thought it was a typo, as well. And, BTW, you speak English well enough.

I speak English much better than I speak Spanish... but to heighten the point of using "text" as another language and ignoring the protocols... I thought I'd use Spanish.

And I thought it would be fun, too.

Which is also fun.

Win Win... with a (I thought) viable point thrown in for good measure.

It's your reading that could use some help.

I don't think it makes much sense to blame case, in this case... as many here don't use capital letters at all...

*

Where pawns are sacrificed to protect The Royalty.
.
.
.
Why YES!
It does appear that Obama is playing chess.
.
.
Sucks if you are a Middle Class Pawn paying for all the "Bailouts" for The Wall Street Royalty.
Pretty OK if you are Elite Class War Criminal Royalty too.

that one had to hurt.

..."Obama is Playing Chess" talking point have obviously never played Chess.

In Chess, Only The King Wins.

is by starting out asking for the least you think you can possible get.

It's a no-brainer.

Try to meet them in the middle before you even know what the middle is.

Hmmm. Looks a bit like laying down to me.

Politics isn't chess it is a negotiation. Chess suggests somehow you will sneak up behind someone with ... I dunno universal single payer healthcare and hit them on the head with it and thereby eliminate subsidized private insurance schemes.

In negotiations you always demand more than what you are willing to settle for. You are very correct that in putting nothing on the table you are assumed to actually ahve a bargaining position. Chess be damned. Passing legislation is more like a combination of poker, the jerry springer show, charades, and an auction.

"You are very correct that in putting nothing on the table is idiotic as you are assumed to actually have a bargaining position when you go into try to get support for a bill"

single payer health care
truth commission
torture prosecutions

oh yeah,

equal rights

anyone else??

we are so fucked

First off you are misusing a logical fallacy. The straw man requires a construct of your oppositions argument based on extremes. It requires an coherant argument put forward that is then misrepresented by yoru opposition.

You put forth an argument of a chessplayer an image that you have not justified and even were it the case if someone disagrees with you and points out an argument agaisnt this personification you cannot merely yawn and accuse them of straw man. Your construct, though positive in appearance, is far closer to the definition.


You also use a sort of back handed ad hominem by implying that the person you are arguing with is too simple or not politically savvy enough to understand the 'real game' or whatever metaphor you decided on this week.

If you are going to invoke logic or make use of logical fallacies in debate then have some actual facts to back up your position.

What kind of chess?

I have a hard time putting trust in someone who says one thing and does something else and then goes back and does the thing they originally were going to do.

It's ok I guess for a game but not so much for Leader of the Free World.

In your hubristic put down of Brother RatEyes you say "Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean he's (Obama)not doing the right thing." could better and more accurately be phrased as:

"Just because he's (Obama) not doing the right thing, doesn't mean you don't get it." It both rids your statement of hubris and accurately reflects which of you two really sees what is going on.

After all, RatEyes is writing about how things are and you are writing about what may someday come to pass, if your channeling of Obama's intent is as Caycesque as you would have us believe.

After all, your sterling defense of Obama's future intentions in the Inside Game of Chess is all of this: "Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing." And, as everyone here knows, the same meme can as easily be used to excuse George W. Bush... or Ashcroft and Cheney. C'est ne pas?

:D :hi:

And I couldn't be a Fr... they don't let chicks do that kind of work.

(OR woman - forgetting the gender in DU's user ID genderless society)

How people will jump on someone and make the fool of themselves without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Priceless.

insulted your intelligence. People in glass houses . . . .

"How people will jump on someone" who questions their pronouncements "and make the fool of themselves without knowing what the hell they are talking about".

"Priceless."

Indeed. You are truly priceless.

thanks for comparing notes.

but not straw.

You nailed two fer two. :thumbsup:

Not to cave in to pressure from groups that were solid Bush supporters for the last 8 years.

The voters didnt vote for more of the same.

Hmm?

I never heard about that. Got link?

there is your answer... actions...

The world would heave a collective vomit if there were too much change all at once.

tell that to them, who are loosing careers

Tell them... and keep a straight face.

By the way in 1950 it took an executive order to integrate the force...

Seriously.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/intchron.htm

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/welcome.html

The magic wand is quite simple... it is called a backbone and a pen. The President of the US does have that authority.

Alas I don't think for many reasons he wants to pick on that fight. And that is very telling to me.

That he is cautious. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. He is clearly not one to rush into things. Slow and steady. I support that.

because we cannot get the southern officer corp annoyed... same bullshit they used to stop negroes from serving in integrated units... exactly same bullshit

And HE should know better. You asked what magic wand... it is not a wand... but a pen... and that is EXACTLY what it will take. The US CONGRESS and SENATE will NOT go there for the same reasons they did not back then. EXACTLY the same bullshit reasons.

And yes, I called the WH already and told them as much.

There's not a chance in hell any of us know what the climate will be in 8 years.

you see the OFFICER CORP that is fighting this is the same type of officer corp that FOUGHT the integration of the force. MOSTLY WHITE, MOSTLY CHRISTIAN and MOSTLY SOUTHERN. I don't need a crystal ball to know that this will not change UNTIL there is an executive order.

But in eight years, you will still be blindly following, admiring a delusional game of chess, telling us crazy tin-foilers to "wait 8 more years."

Some of you are reaching apologist levels that rival the Germans in the 1930's.

You simply cannot will yourself to see that you've been sold a Bill Of Goods.

I voted for him too.

I WANTED to believe in him too.

But so far, he is NOT what he appears to be, or what you so desperately want him to appear to be.

I'm sorry you can't see it.

But Don't Stop Believin'.

Because we all know PERCEPTION is more important than Justice, Human Rights, The Constitution, etc.

As long as you are filled with hope and feeling good, it's all OK.

And the rest of us can get fucked.

We understand.

Now, post your clever insult and show us how Big and strong you are, and do some channeling of John Malkovich from "Rounders."

"You. Won't. Be. Pushed. Around."

this is so tiring.

sorry we couldn't get that done.

When someone is waiting for their human rights to be restored or acknowledged, SLOW and STEADY just doesn't cut it.

I appreciate cautious, intelligent, thoughtful research into a problem but that can also be a disguise for cowardice or indifference, just say'n.

Another problem is that you lose the powerful PUBLIC support that got you elected and people start to tune out.

It's hard to believe that he needs that much more research on many of the promises he ran on.

"justice delayed is justice denied."

More calculating than careful.

More of the same than change.

Oh, I forgot. He can't really do anything about anything; he's only the president. And he's only got 8 years. What could we expect?

The Dems need to be bold and forthright in initiating changes. The opposition be damned. Screw them. No more "don't ask, don't tell" right now. No more medical insurance companies any more, today. Tax the shit out of them and make medicare for all available now. Make those paper pushers find a real job. No more money for failed CEO's that bankrupt their companies today. No more money for the bloated defense budget.

The world would breathe a collective sigh of relief if all these changes came all at once. It's the media that would convulse and reject the changes, because they're bought and paid for by the corporate elites that enjoy the status quo.

Do you understand that the US and Turkey are the only Nato members that don't allow gay people to serve openly?
The world pukes at our atavistic oppression of our own people and at our actions in the nations we invade and occupy, such as raping the prisoners and not prosecuting the rapists.

Try Absolut. I understand some have found Truth in that. Can't do worse, huh?

Havent you been paying attention?

And I've yet to hear one single word about anything being off the table. If you could link, I'd appreciate it.

I've seen a few things hit snags and set backs, but not one single, solitary issue that has completely been thrown off the table.

What you are asking for is a clear public acknowldegement that the Democratic party and/or the president has stated that they are not pursuing these changes: Open Service, universal healthcare, etc. If you are as smart about politics as you claim to be then you should no that no politician does that to their base no matter how badly they are screwing them over.

You have just set the bar for abandonement of an issue so absurdly high that the administration can accomplish nothing while barely trying at all.

everything, but the SSDD:shrug:

playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules when the other guy is coming at you with a tire iron and a razor.

It's also called "suicide."

And rather soon, imho. Do you tap your foot whilst waiting for the microwave?

though I went out and purchased one; instead of tapping my foot while waiting by the front door for the one the delivery man promised to bring eventually.

Will you still be waiting by that door four years from now or maybe become a bit more proactive?

The snarky responses, i.e.,

"Do you tap your foot whilst waiting for the microwave?", borrowed from Readers Digest or your afternoon Bridge Club, do damned little to convince anyone here that your political acumen and IQ are as great as you keep crowing about.

Could you please stun us with your intellect by using your own words, bitte?

Those were my words... :eyes:

If you really want to use IQ as a measure of someone's worth, which I think is appalling to say the least, I'll pit mine against yours any day.

Whatever, dude. You don't even know what Mensa is, do you? :rofl:

that I obviously do know what it is. I just don't bother to tattoo it on my forehead to ward off my own neediness.

For any out there who are less tired of this exchange than I am, my PM below was written in response to your 6:30PM PM to me (your part bolded below). I really wish you had chosen to desist after I sent that.


>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Re: those were my words...

Yes. That was exactly my point. If they are, and I can believe you originated them, then it seems more the pity to me.

You pasted a Mensa label into a recent post. Why? To show people how smart you are? It is why I would say "more is the pity" whenever one takes to quoting themselves in email posts.

Why do I say such a thing? Wasn't the remark witty enough?

No, it would be a witty enough line if conceived and then spoken. I would have laughed heartily enough had I been onhand to hear it and it had been said in an appropriate situation. But it didn't happen that way, did it?

The later quoting of such cute remarks, especially when done by their creator, cheapens not only that particular riposte but removes all spontaneity from further communication and replaces it in the realm of self-promoting calculation.

I really don't like to play those games. So I won't.

That's why they are called PM = Private Message.

:eyes:

You make no sense.

is taking the high road?

:eyes:

The high road sees what is happening and doesn't try to convince itself that it's OK. It is not OK and the realistic Democrat admits: We've been had. Big Time.

Money talks, walks and gets its way.

The reason that the Democratic bigwigs are "reaching across the aisle" is because that is where the money is. We are poor (relatively speaking), therefore, they could care less about our needs and opinions. Only the rich have a voice. We are silenced.

Obama was in L.A. last night -- fundraising. That means he was talking to a lot of rich people and ignoring the rest of us. Bush-lite. Sorry, but I want to see a real Democrat in the White House and real Democrats in the Congress.

hypocrites :thumbsdown: living in a sold out "high road" experiment that failed.

they have been and stop worrying about having bi-partisan support if the GOP isn't going to give an inch.

and we don't do a damned thing about it.

And you probably should have known that going itno this. If you think winning one election means we can fix everything, you're fooling yourself badly.

We need to win ten of the damn things, at least. With every one, we will move things more and more in the proper direction.

But one won't do it alone. I'm frustrated, too, and speaking up about it. But German sociologist Max Weber accurately described politics as "the slow boring of hard boards."

So.

2006 and 2008

Is there some rule that it has to be best 3 out of 5?

and our world, there will not be 3 out of 5. We on DU are the activists. I for one am losing my enthusiasm thanks to Obama's inertia and catering to the rich. Next election, I just may stay home and clean house rather than make calls and walk my precinct. What is the use? There is no hope and no change.

That the DLC and the Blue dogs don't get. They figure they can win merely by getting campaign contributions and ignoring the base. 2006 was not won by campaign cash it was won by door knockers and phone calls and the internet all firing people up.

The corporate powers realized by 2008 that backing a republican that was going to lose anyways was futile and a waste. So they figured if they threw enough money at the Democrat in the lead they could compromise them and maybe get a down payment in on a second political party.

Of course if the activists give up disgruntled then the party is over and we immediately sink back to 1994 and 2000.

Kudos for creativity. Time to update the campaign slogans.

"Real Change - after nine more election cycles."

"Yes We Can - keep this shit going for another 18 years."

And BTW, Weber didn't know dick about politics.

at least some movement in the right direction on the issues mentioned. We've had a Democratic majority in Congress now for 2 and a half YEARS. Rove & Miers have yet to testify, even after it was announced they had reached a deal and would be deposed in late April of this year. Obama decried military commissions during the campaign, and is now embracing them with a little "tweaking" and has announced a policy of indefinite detention. WTF is up with that?

Centrism for centrism sakes. That is what it is. It is the "beltway wisdom". The same wisdom, I might add, that gave us the Iraq war, torture, tax cuts for the rich, the dismantling of our educational system, etc. etc. etc.

There are many of us that do not trust beltway wisdom because it ALWAYS means right-wing policies are kept/implemented, and the left wing isn't even allowed to the table.

We won't.

If that's your plan, give up.

win a republican wins it.

The GOP had to win in '80, again in '84, again in '92, win congress in '94, beat Gore in '00, win back congress again in '02 after Jeffords switched parties, and win again in '04, before they were able to affect "real change."

It wasn't just one.

That might just mean you weren't one of the people directly affected by those changes.

I am frankly shocked that anyone would think there wasn't real change toward the right until 2004.

You never hear the Republicans saying that THEY have to be bipartisan, only that WE have to be bipartisan.

When Reagan was elected, his administration IMMEDIATELY began changing things. So did Bush Jr.

and they know Repukes would call em on it if they did exactly what Repukes do.

Besides, whatever you say about Reagan, his approach was to get on TV, put on his folksy old grandpa face, and explain (usually in lies) why he was doing what he was doing. He didn't wonder whether the American people were ready for such and such a move. He went on TV to persuade them and put his ground troops in action to foment AstroTurf (fake grassroots) support.

With Reagan tho, he had to say homeless were campers and ketchup is a vegetable to splain "why he was doing what he was doing."


"He went on TV to persuade them and put his ground troops in action to foment AstroTurf (fake grassroots) support."


We have too many AstroTurf Dems.

And Reagan was instantly transformative, according to Obama the Reticent. Hugely transformative in a way that Clinton was not, to be specific.
Reagan's policies changed this country very quickly. Some did not notice, as they were busy making Reagan bucks and ignoring words like 'contra' and 'AIDS'.

during their decades of dominance in the House. It's not an impossibility, and with demographic trends moving the way they are, it's not the craziest idea.

(Edited: meant to write "demographic" instead of "democratic"...Freudian slip)

actually address the items noted in the OP. You seem to be encouraging the "wait and see" mode and sidestepping specific issues the OP brought up.

It's a legitimate and common concern and you may have some insight on why it's okay to let those specific things go, rather than address them directly and urgently.

One instantaneous effect of the Reagan era (you may be a bit too young to not see it as you presented....) was it put the nation into an instant coma, from which we are just almost maybe ready to wake up.

Anti-intellectualism
Racism
Greed
War-mongering
Treating money as a sign of virtue

Those traits were always there, but Reagan treated them as virtues.

Hypocrisy
Media manipulation
Class War
Xenophobia
Unqualified leadership
Celebrity Worship
Hypocrisy
Anti-environmentalism
Hypocrisy

Definitely

:wow:

William River Spit quoth: (in saying, basically, that GOP did nothing until 2004.:rofl:)

The GOP had to win in '80,

(except for the tax cuts and David Stockman, and the (laughable) Laffer curve, that cut the levels of corporate funding of federal government compared to individual contributions)

again in '84,

during which period, among other things, the Iran-Contra scandal played out, the set up for the S&L bailout (all 750B, despite lower figures being alleged) was managed, Ivan Boesky looted whom he could, and the FCC gave over the UHF airwaves to the Christian Taliban

again in '92,

Uh... wasn't that Clinton?? Or are your taking his DINO creds into account?

win congress in '94,

Ended, as Clinton said, "Welfare as we know it".

beat Gore in '00,

Beat Gore??? There are those who would beg to differ. Still, in the aftermath of 9-11, the Bush regime managed the greatest rollback of civil liberties of all of us (as opposed to strictly "those of color. And, of course, "furriners").

Further lowered tax rates for corporations and the wealthy. Remember Greenspan lamenting the possibility that the US would become too wealthy if we created surpluses and paid off our debt? What a quaint theory! (and how well it served the interests of the self-appointed truly "elites"... those who had amassed, or stolen, enough money)

win back congress again in '02 after Jeffords switched parties, and win again in '04, before they were able to affect "real change."

So the change began in '04? Seems that it was '04 that those steadfast citizens, many here at DU included, stood up and peacefully overthrew the GOP in '06 and '08. And what we need to peel back from the public domain that with which the GOP have insidiously poisoned the body politic since the first second they were able to manage it.

The GOP are a cancerous carbuncle on the ass of the body politic and should be excised if they cannot be burned out with radioactivity. Simply because they, as denied by WRS, are and were able to make every second count when destroying that which the vox populi (sealed silently away by the MSM) wish for.

To contend, WRS, that Democratic officeholders cannot step up and make moral decisions, based solely upon moral considerations, is absolutely ludicrous and is evidence of insanity, either on their part or yours.

They can do it. It is just that they haven't yet done it. Will they? We'll see. But, until then, many of us are becoming increasingly discontent at what we see. And, possibly even moreso at those that try to tell us that we are not seeing it, that we have "imperfect vision". Or that what we are seeing is something else. Or that we should pay attention to those who have the intelligence to understand it... like JuniperaLie. It's just all so much like the Bush-Cheney days... they know best, huh, Bill? :sarcasm:

"It wasn't just one."

Well, WRS, whatever old canard gets you to the next old canard.

:kick:

blacks should get an ERA with just FOUR MORE Democratic Presidential victories (as Truman started things with integration of the Armed Forces)!! Whoop, whoop, hooray!!

Jesus, Rivers Spit, you know better than this. A decision to allow prosecution of those indicted for TORTURE is not an incremental decision! It is a simply act of a President sitting down with his own Soul (courage, integrity,... fill in the blank yourself) and deciding what is right... and then doing it. Right fucking then!!

do you think it would be nice of they reached accross the aisel and compromise?

Everybody knows that. :shrug:

:P

Didn't get the memo. I guess I'll find out what it is if and when I use it.

it's a nasty take on the word "outrage". It was the most recommended post on DU and highly discussed a few weeks back.

with my hands folded across my chest and my lower lip stuck out because I didn't get the small horse I was promised. :sarcasm:

instead of McCain's.

if a party gains a political majority in government, it should be able to impose all of its views and compromise nothing? I'm not sure, but i think that's called TYRANNY!!

rights are protected by law. We can't trample minority rights. Neither, however, do we have to sacrifice values for political expediency.

At least "tyranny" in the service of the people would be a damn sight better for the world than a tyranny solely in the service of moneyed elites - that is, if we're using your framework, which i think is obsolete.

:toast: Oh sorry, that was a Strawman :blush: but it's still BS

DADT and extending full federal marriage rights are legitimate complaints because he campaigned on those.

As to the rest of it, he never promised single payer health care. He always said the federal agency will follow the evidence on the Bush crimes. And there is a real problem with what to do with terrorists, just like there would be if this was a war against a standing military, it's a problem.

It has much less to do with reaching across the aisle than recognizing the country we live in does not think like the 20% far left, and that there are serious problems including very real terrorists that many on the left don't even believe exist.

I don't recall you being happy with ANY Democrats so I don't understand why you would think you'd be happy now.

I think those first two points are very inflammatory and will take a lot of time to turn around.

You know, I have less patience than most people I know... and I'm finding I have more than many here... truly scary.

I blamed Congress for not putting ONE voice on the health insurance panel. When he was campaigning, President Obama knew that GITMO was a mess, yet called for the end of military commissions. Nothing has changed about GITMO since then.

And, I absolutely and unabashedly was happy to support President Obama during the election, and support him NOW. I do NOT, however, have to be happy with any vote by any Dem, or any policy by any Dem when I disagree with them.

I call and write and praise (when right) and protest (when wrong) the actions of all my governmental representatives.

I will not, however, give a pass to Democrats simply because they are Democrats.

Thats the problem.

Don

or really doing anything at all that would alter the current state of the Mainstream Media.

might be more of a party distinction among the remainder.

government on to all of us.

So you want to do the same. If we do we lose.

An equally viable corollary would be that our government is red-shifted....seriously red-shifted away from the wants of the people.

This situation would manifest itself first with the GOP losing power because they represent the greatest red shift. Not because they are extreme, but they are extreme right-wing.

Asking for a blue-shift in American politics is NOT the equivalent of forcing communism or socialism down everyone's throats. It's asking for a little balance.

You present a false equivalency that has not been borne out with evidence.

keep Dems in power if we went too far left of center.

No it isn't a false equivalency. You only have to look at the election of Ronald Reagan for the last time it happened to us. Ever hear the term Reagan Democrats?

Canada? France?

I would like to go to far to the left for most. But I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask to go back at least to the center, perhaps even slightly left. Staying just a bit to the right is ridiculous, and I do not believe for an instant that that is what the people voted for.

As has been stated many times; the "left" in this country would be considered the "right" in a lot of other countries.
If one keeps playing the political game in the way that relies on not upsetting people or in the other sense not willing to criticize politicians, we will always be were we are now.

Ever hear the term Reagan Democrats? Another term would be gullible fools.

:thumbsdown:


If you haven't observed the nation being shoved to the right for 30 years, while the social safety net was dismantled and the national economy was siphoned off to the top 1%, while jobs were outsourced and corporations bought everything including politicians, while CEOs and legislators were given bigger and bigger perks for selling out the people that make their wealth possible, you haven't been paying attention.

That ain't red or blue. That's reality.

And the "Reagan Democrats" and capitulators and damn hypocrites who "won't care until it affects them" are the enablers who made it all possible.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are expanding the Democratic political majority, to serve the needs of the Democratic political majority...

It does occur to me though, that the corporate lobbyists probably give larger "donations" to the party in power, than the party out of power... so there's that.

Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses his first two years in office (Jan 93 to Jan 95) and the Dems fucked him good on health Care.

Precisely as Obama will get fucked on health care by the Dems in congress who rake in donations from the insurance corporations and we the tax payers pay for it and get nothing.

Just watch congress fuck us on Universal Health Care, again!!

under my skin. I wish a couple more Republicans (like Collins and Snowe) would do an Arlen Specter so we would have a REAL majority that will stick together. Problem is, even Specter says he won't vote for cloture on the EFCA. Very frustrating!

However, I'm still very glad that we won. Things would be ten times worse if the Republicans had control. If McCain had prevailed, Souter's replacement would be pretty damn scary! (And I have a feeling he or she would have no trouble getting in, even with a Democratic majority)

Democrats are the Conservatives, and the Republicans are just plain scary".

The republicans would make Freddy, Jason and Michael take pause.

their editorial stance sounds just like the DLC Democrats. Even The Economist, another Tory publication, sounds like the Blue Dog Democrats, i.e. Republican economics with liberal social values.

obama has 4 years to get a lot done.... and another 4 if we are lucky and strong. HE IS A CENTRIST in many ways, and the win did not just come from those of us who are HEAVY PROGRESSIVE... the win came from a broad cross-section of america---> and OBAMA represents all of us.

what has he done.... several GREAT appointments including his most recent nominee for the S.C.
several rules removed, others put in place...

began the healing around the world of their opinion of the USA
began THE HEALING with the GOP... back to the days where there is aisle crossing and reaching across AND COMMUNICATION
brought back science over religous bullshit to the whitehouse

SO MANY CHANGES... SO MUCH MORE TO DO.... but a good deal of the work requires COOPERATION with "the other side"

I TRUST OBAMA TO GUIDE THIS COUNTRY IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS... AND PLAN TO GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO

The party is governing, IMO, with a party over country attitude.

Why can't you wake up to the fact that there can BE NO HEALING WITH THE GOP?

They are fascist War Criminals who want nothing to do with the rule of law, nothing to do with the Constitution, nothing to do with human rights, nothing to do with ANYTHING but being fascist War Criminals and Oligarchs.

They are a rogue MAFIA that would GLADLY END this little 233 year-old experiement given half the chance once they get back in power.

YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE with CRIMINALS.

Especially when your own PARTY is acting in not much different ways than the CRIMINALS who just left Power.

We are not ending the wars we are EXPANDING them.

We are not holding the CRIMINALS who just left Power ACCOUNTABLE, we are LETTING THEM OFF THE HOOK AND RETAINING SOME OF THEIR MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES.

In Secret Documents that were released soon after Obama took office, it was revealed that since 10/12/2001 right up until Obama took office we were effectively a DICTATORSHIP.

Do. You. Understand?

WAKE. UP.

I'm just about to jump ship...

oh, that's right you can. now please, jump overboard.

Notice no one really wants to argue how well Congress is doing, or how we should give THEM some more time? That's because there's something to actually ARGUE with Obama. It's hard to argue for Congress.

Just saying. ;)

Telling, isn't it?

there are a lot of DINOs out there. It's like Jurassic Park!

They cowered when Bush and Cheney ran things. They cower now when they're in charge. They're like a codependent spouse just waiting for the hubby or wife to beat the crap out of them. Being abused for them is love.

If you had to pin it down to specific incidents, I'd go before September 11 and go back to when those kids were killed at Kent State. That took the wind out of the sails of the New Left, and progressive types have been stuck in the Dry Tortugas with no wind and no paddles ever since.

JFK RFK and MLK.

of help from middle-of-the-roaders and Independents -- not just the most progressive Democrats.

Even some former moderate Republicans joined us -- not because they had suddenly "seen the light" and turned progressive, but because their former party had turned so far in the other direction.

So, the same thing that helped us win the election -- our big umbrella -- means we have a broader range of opinion, even within our own ranks, to work with. And that entails COMPROMISE.

We go into an election optimistic and we work hard and give more money than we can afford to get Democrats in office, believing all the while they will work on our behalf. Some will. A handful. The others are still in the pocket of the corporations. We've been suckered.

Little tangible difference between the two parties at all as far as I can tell.

I also don't believe he isn't aware of the tremendous groundswell there would be if HE were to bring these issues to the people, just as he did so masterfully and so eloquently at his well attended rallies. His behavior is hard to understand at this point given his passion during the campaign.

I go nuts when I hear "reaching across the aisle" or "moderation". The clear result of that is that they then all agree to favor the rich and screw everyone else half as much? This kind of short sighted thinking is how we've gotten to where we've gotten, why Eisenhower would largely be seen as almost a pinko in today's political spectrum. We meet them halfway, they do nothing of the sort. So here we are. The rich get richer, the semi poor and poor get poorer, and the safety net for average Americans is disappearing.

Short answer: YES

In Lockstep with Fascism

Some may think fascism is too extreme a word to describe our current government. But what is fascism and where are we today? Most people are followers and want something to believe in. We are prone to believe in our government, even when there is something obviously wrong. And who could support fascism? But are we really living in a fascist country?

by Hari Heath

Fascism

Fascism became a mass movement between World Wars One and Two. Primarily a European movement, it also had some influence in Japan, Argentina and Brazil. The common theme was an emphasis on a nation-state or race as the central regulator of the people's life and the undisputable authority of a leader, behind whom the people were expected to unite. Most fascist movements originated from socialist philosophies.

The Italian word fascio is derived from the Latin fasces, a bundle of rods with an axe in it. It symbolized the power of the many united and obeying one will; the authority of a state which provides all law, order and national life.

Fascism is directly opposed to our original American philosophy and its emphasis on individual liberty, unalienable rights and the equality of all members of a society. Fascism extols the supreme sovereignty of the nation and the people's submission to the mandates of the state. The Italian fascists' slogan was “to believe, to obey, to combat.”

Fascism is a political method of gaining and retaining power by violence and the suppression of all opposition. It exalts an attitude that promotes the fighting spirit, military discipline, ruthlessness, the prevalence of the strong over the weak and the immediate, blind obedience to the dictates of an authoritative leader.

Fascism and the Fasci

The word fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini in 1919. But its origins reach to the Fasci Siciliani of several decades earlier. The Fasci Siciliani were primitive trade unions of Sicilian workers and peasants in the early 1890's who worked for better labor contracts and to protect villager's lands. The Fasci were founded on socialist ideologies, but their lure was mostly practical. They obtained the allegiance of the people by challenging the low wages of the working class and the dominance of agriculture by large estates.

The upper classes in Sicily felt their monopoly of power was threatened by the strikes organized by the Fasci. In 1893, some peasants in Caltavuturo were killed when they occupied land they claimed was theirs. Retaliating, some public buildings were attacked and burned by the Fasci. The upper class and the police responded with more force to suppress the fasci movement.

In 1894 martial law was declared and Prime Minister Francesco Crispi sent troops to Sicily who arrested many of the Fasci leaders. Crispi used the public's fear of social revolution to strike at all “subversive” organizations.

Ironically, the Fasci, whose name became the root word for fascism, were the people who opposed Prime Minister Crispi and the ruling elite that behaved as fascists.

Two pillars of fascism

Mussolini brought fascism to Italy with a sweeping, violent revolution. He reigned for twenty years, imposing his brand of socialism with his “black shirts.” He invaded Abyssinia and Albania to expand the Italian empire, but he was unable to develop a military force that could compete in the early World War II era. His regime was more chaotic than his German counterparts. Without a clear focus on his goals and a regime capable of employing them, he floundered.

Hitler was another matter. Well organized, the Nazi party destroyed their enemies and rose to power. With a totalitarian police state, Hitler became the embodiment of fascism. Enforced by his security police, the SS, all educational, artistic and media institutions came under his regime's control. The Hitler Youth Movement indoctrinated the young. The Nazis sponsored a German Christian Movement and suppressed other churches. The Jews fared much worse. They lost their civil rights and much of their property was confiscated. First they were sent to ghettos and then to the camps.

Hitler's era was the pinnacle of classic fascism. He was the standard of that dark achievement. The brutality of his regime is forever etched in history.

Early fascism

The essential nature of what has become known as fascism has been around since the early civilizations. Human political structures usually revolve around some form of charismatic leader and a governing force which compels allegiance from the population, usually with force. Individual liberty and self-government are very new concepts in the timeline of human history. Fascism, as a word, is less than a century old, but the concept is timeless.

Human nature?

It appears to be human nature for certain members of humanity to engage in the creation of fascist regimes. Like other organized crimes, the benefits of fascism can be enormous for its perpetrators. And it also appears to be part of human nature to tolerate, even revere fascists. French political philosopher Frederic Bastiat summed it up best: “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”.

Fascism defined

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition describes a fascist as: “A totalitarian; a believer in the corporate state; one opposed to the exercise of democratic methods or of civil liberties; high handed; embodying principles of syndicalism.” The American Heritage Dictionary describes fascism as: “A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.” A more modern politically correct definition is: “...any nationalist and authoritarian movement...any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.”

Fascists and communists

Some fascists, like Mussolini, were anti-communist. This may appear to be the case when gleaned from their political rhetoric, but objective observation gives a different picture. Nearly all, if not all, communistic regimes are founded on the fascist tactics of violent revolution; suppression of opposition; rule by an iron hand and central control by the state. Communism is often founded by a charismatic leader.

Fascists similarly use communistic methods to implement and maintain their regimes. The operation of a nation-state which exercises complete control over the lives of the citizen; compelled submission of the citizen to the state; and a dominant single political party are trademarks of fascists and communists alike.

Communism and socialism

Communism and socialism is best measured with a thermometer. They differ only by degrees. Communists are blatant about their methods of domination and control. A single party regime has complete control over all property and the lives of its people. Individual liberty is a foreign concept to communism. The infrastructures of daily life are under the control of the state.

Socialism achieves the same goal but lets you think you are in charge and have control of “your” property. The principle behind the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of all private property and its conversion to a system of rents to fund government purposes.

You may be led to believe you can own property in the socialistic U.S., but who will own your property if you stop paying property taxes -- that “rent” on “your” property? Ultimately, who has control? This communist principle is achieved by the lesser degrees of socialism. Under straight communism, whatever property you get is allotted for your use but the state owns it.

Under our socialist state, you are allowed the illusion of “owning” property. But you must pay for the right to this illusion by purchasing the property. If you still think you don't live under the thumb of socialism, try completing a real estate transaction without state issued identification and a Social Security Number.

So-called health care is another subject where it is only a matter of degrees between the two “isms.” Under communism, the state operates and funds the medical establishment as a state owned infrastructure. The citizen gets whatever healthcare the state chooses to provide.

Under socialism, funding is extorted through taxes and employer contributions. Some socialistic health care systems have the appearance of being private, but government controls them at many levels. This operates “typically through the merging of state and business leadership.” Agency regulations, healthcare provider licensing, HMOs, government mandated programs like Medicare, and the powerful pharma-cartel all “merge” to control your health options, usually for the benefit of those who profit most from disease. Under socialism, the citizen gets whatever health care the corporate state allows.

Whether provided by a communist state or imposed by socialism as a mandatory contribution to a state regulated enterprise, the end result is the same. There are only degrees of difference.

The corporate state

A fascist has been described as “a believer in the corporate state,” and fascism as “...a system of government that ...typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.” Doesn't that describe U.S. citizens and their government?

Corporations and financial interests have essentially purchased our elected officials and put them into power by manipulating the election process. Congress and the executive/administrative branch of government, more often than not, serve the corporate interests that employ them. And the courts put the final nail into the coffin of our formerly free republic.

Positions within the agencies of government are routinely filled by former employees of the corporations they now regulate. This cozy corporate/state relationship is a handy way for dominant corporations to eliminate their competition -- a tactic of fascism.

And when U. S. citizens, those “believers in the corporate state,” need more resources, our government drums up some excuse to send our boys off hither in another act “of belligerent nationalism.” Are we fascists yet?

Capitalism vs. communism

In spite of proclaimed differences, fascism, communism and socialism are just different variations on a theme. But what about our beloved system of free enterprise and capitalism? Consider the following:

Communists use capitalist methods to accomplish their communist objectives, while capitalists use communist methods to accomplish their capitalist objectives.

What nation is creating a massive expansion of capital and rapidly increasing their commercial infrastructure? Communist China. How? By mass merchandising around the world, beating their competition, capturing the market share, and reinvesting in their infrastructure. Isn't that capitalism?

And what nations have fully implemented all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto and operate massive socialist administrations, which are only degrees away from communism? The U.S., Britain, and most of the other G8 “capitalist” nations (see IO, Feb. 1999 www.proliberty.com/observer/19990211.htm).

Ultimately, what are all these “isms” about? Power. And more of it, any way the perpetrators of a particular “ism” can get it.

Unfettering the Federalists

There are many points in the timeline of American history that we could consider as the emergence of U.S. fascism. But the so-called “Civil War” era began a quantum leap to unfettered power. Although “the Civil War was fought over slavery” is the programming installed at the public indoctrination centers we attended during childhood, the real story behind that conflict suggests other causes.

The northern states wanted to impose taxes on imported agricultural equipment which was used in the primarily agrarian south. The southern states preferred to buy European equipment that was less expensive than the equipment manufactured in the industrial north.

The contest reached a constitutional crisis when the southern states walked out of Congress and began a secession from the union because the northern states wanted to exercise powers in excess of the Constitution's authority.

President Lincoln began to unshackle the federalists from the chains of the Constitution by issuing Executive Orders. This included ordering a draft to fill the ranks of the Union army and calling a Union-only Congress into session. The draft was not popular, nor was his war.

The fascist Lincoln suppressed the protests of the draft in the north by meeting protesters with federal troops. A thousand New Yorkers were killed or wounded when protesting the draft for “Lincoln's War.”

The southern “Rebels” attempted to stop the northern “Union” from rebelling against the Constitution, but the federal fascists prevailed in America's bloodiest conflict and began the “Reconstruction Era.” The federalists now had their chance to usher in unfettered federalism. With the money powers of the north and the Industrial Revolution in full swing, private and public interests merged.

After reconstruction, the corporate state was further enriched by the land and resources acquired by westward expansion and the “belligerent nationalism” imposed on the west's native peoples.

The federal fascist dictatorship

The basic forms of constitutional government are used only for show purposes. We are not actually governed by anything constitutional. Congress exceeds its constitutional powers with great abandon. The President operates an executive regime that declares war and issues its own orders. The courts no longer interpret laws in the light of the Constitution. They legislate with elaborate doctrines, in defiance of plain English and our fundamental Rights.

And the real power lies in the shadows. FEMA, the CIA, the Department of Justice, an unaccountable federal judiciary and countless agencies wield the fascists sword, or in the case of the fasces, an ax.

In true fascist fashion, swarms of federal agencies have been sent hither “with an ideology of belligerent nationalism” to control opposition and bring everyone into the fold of the corporate state.

Just as socialism isn't exactly communism, a single dictator doesn't lead our federal fascists. Keeping the outer appearance of constitutional form, a multi-headed fascist, administrative dictatorship has assumed the awesome power to regulate our national lives.

Never mind the Constitution's mandate that “all legislative power shall be vested in the Congress.” What has Congress become? A worse than useless debating society with a bottomless retirement fund? The Republican vs. Democrat theater maintains the illusion of a functional two party political system. What substantive differences do they offer?

Democrats and Republicans are the ruse by which the American people are fooled into believing they are not being ruled by a single party, totalitarian, fascist, communist/socialist regime.

Leaps and bounds in the age of terrorism

The agencies we have all come to know and love have now been merged into a super-fascist agency. Homeland Security is now the big business of our corporate state. And while we were paying our collective national attention to “We Got Him” and “Rat in the Hole,” the real terrorists, our single party corporate state, quietly passed Patriot Act II, with more fascist power mergers looming.

Where are we headed?

If we look past the programming we have been indoctrinated with, a pattern is emerging. In recent times, the fascists first went to Idaho and killed a mother and her son. Then they marched off to a church in Texas, laid siege, and burned it to the ground; men, women and children inside.

Then they went to Oklahoma and bombed their own building at the start of the workday. While Congress churned out more fascist state control acts, the Department of Justice pinned the tail on patsy McVeigh. As the score went from 2, to 86, to 168, the fascists blood lust grew.

Next thousands were killed as some prime real estate in New York City was destroyed. And the most secure military facility in the world was penetrated, without any defensive maneuvers, 55 minutes after the first “attack” and 37 minutes after the second plane hit. Quite a feat of event engineering and the mother of all cover-ups.

It laid the foundation for the next act of pre-planned national belligerence in some one else's oil fields.

But after that, what is next? Hints have already been dropped that those terrorists will be using weapons of mass destruction, dirty bombs and biological weapons. Is it really news, and who are the real terrorists? Cover-ups and lies dominate every official story of these recent events.

The FBI told us Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal building but they refuse, even under court order, to release the 22 video surveillance tapes that show what really happened. And the same FBI told us 19 Arab hijackers caused the events of 9-11. But the FBI hasn't explained why the hijackers weren't on the airlines passenger manifest or why 7 of those alleged hijackers are still alive. Who are the real terrorists and what's next on their fascist agenda?

Two paths

We can continue to have our fascist “protectors” amass even more powers while they plan their next event in the most extreme, evil, Hegelian manner. Or we can say enough is enough -- with the kind of force that tyrant fascists must heed. We will either, by conscious action, take the steps necessary to alter our current direction, or by default succumb to the plans of those who would have absolute power over us. The path before us is ours to choose, collectively and individually.

The limits of tyranny

Frederick Douglass explained our predicament and the choices we must make, by default or otherwise: “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong, which will be imposed upon them. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning.”

Our police state

Some have said only three per cent of the American colonists fought in the American Revolution. What will happen to the police when three per cent of the American people decide they can no longer tolerate living in a fascist police state. And what will the good people of America do to those fascists who have committed the atrocities that mark our times? Will a Fasci Americana emerge to challenge the federal fascists? And how will the federal fascists respond to a new American Revolution? Isn't it time we were brave enough to find out?

“Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

~Benito Mussolini

http://proliberty.com/observer/20040102.htm

I say this somewhat sadly, even though I am part of the reason.

The reason why the Democrats and President Obama are not cleaving through the forest wielding a Axe of Liberal Liberation is that they know that they have come into power recently also because a lot of ex-Republicans found their party went too right wing even for them, and voted Democrat. I am one of those voters.

So your umbrella has gotten bigger with a bunch of us ex-Republicans now under it. Now a lot of us are willing to go along with our new party, and are willing to move more left than we were before. For example I've never been big on welfare but I figure if we have trillions to spend on wasteful immoral wars and corporateering then we ought to have some money for the welfare of American citizens. And I figure if I have to choose between a politician deciding what medical benefits to pay for or a greedy insurance company, I'll take the former.

But I'm not, for example, going to tolerate any move against my right to keep and bear arms.

I think President Obama's administration is treading very carefully so that they don't alienate the huge chunk of the old Republican party they stole and consequently find themselves booted back out of office again.

That's the reality as I see it.

Thank you for you comment. Was there something in particular that finally clinched your voting decision?

Lots of things.

Mostly it was the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". I think the war is a huge waste of money and lives, a huge power grab for government (suspension of habeus corpus, pervasive domestic surveillance), and does absolutely nothing to reduce the likelihood of another terror attack, and in fact almost certainly increases it. At the very best, all you can say positive about the Iraq war is that it is a giant welfare project to benefit Iraqis. But I figure if you are going to spend trillions on welfare you might as well spend it on American welfare.

I'm also dismayed that the Republican party seems to be controlled by corporate and oil interests.

I'm also annoyed by the fact that there is trillions for war and bailing out corporations, but we are saddled with the meme that we won't have any Social Security when I retire and I can't have single-payer health care.

Basically I've always viewed the Republican party as being strong on defense, defenders of the 2nd Amendment, and fiscally conservative.

But they've abused their military power to sate greed, and they've thrown any pretense of fiscal conservation out the window.

Are there more of you? Any legislators?

Thanks for your reply!! :toast:

Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of "conservatives" are not that smart. I don't mean to be mean, but there are a lot of "down home" people who for generations have thrived on the ideas of self-reliance and a strong (usually religiously-inspired) moral code. People who love their country and have a strong "love it or leave it", "my country right or wrong" mentality. I'm not defending these mentalities I'm just stating them.

The Republican party has pandered to these people. I think maybe a long time ago they might have actually believed those things, too. But more and more it becomes clear that they simply appear to believe in those things, only to secure the voting block of those kinds of people who actually believe in those things.

So they support the right to keep and bear arms, which the "down home" people love and see as a sign of a trusting, self-reliant, stand-up politician, not realizing that these same politicians are suspending habeus corpus and monitoring all of their phone calls and internet communications.

They talk a good game about family values, which the religious folks love, but then go back to their page boys and wide stances and prostitutes.

They wage wars against "terrorist" in other countries and the "down home" folks love it and see retribution for 9/11 - regardless of who was actually at fault for it. They're all Muslim heathens anyway so who cares?

You know what they say, when tyranny comes it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in an American flag. Well that is what the Republican party has become.

Some people, who are intelligent and aren't clouded by religion, bigotry, and blind patriotism are waking up to that fact.

a lot of people are big on the conformity, in the "down home' and other demographics. Repubs count on it. it's people willing to think for themselves and not "buy a pig in a poke" that comprehend. No doubt some country folk included.

When it's the Constitution that's being disassembled, I would have thought there were more conservatives, even in Congress who stood up for the principles they always pretend to be about.

The powers that be buy out both sides so no matter who wins they win.

There's always some magical "next time" to deal with stolen elections, illegal wars and other violations of the Constitution.

Some golden ring reason that IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE to win the TRIFECTA and now here we are, a bunch of bloody hypocrites.

we just couldn't get Pelosi and Conyers to care.

:yourock:

There is no left and right anymore in government. Its all the same corporate bullshit. One side feeds you fascism and the other side tricks you into not seeing it.

:(

Our party lied to us about holding the White House accountable and ending the war.

Yesterday I received a request for a donation from the DNC, I'm going to send my envelope back with just a note telling them how disappointed I am with them.

Mein Gott, this place is bummer anymore.

All the gloom-and-doom crap shoots right up to the top of the Greatest Page.

You know, folks, there're other emotions besides outrage.

And, don't you mean that I shouldn't complain...after all they put whipped cream on the pile of shit they're feeding us to try and fool us into thinking it's not really a pile of shit, but an ice-cream sundae?

The Elites in Power have no use for such peasant things as Ice Cream. :)

"How long do you have to get hit over the head before you realize who's hitting you?" -- Harry S. Truman

:shrug:

Obama gave us in just over 100 days

A date certain withdrawl out of Iraq

A stimulus package emphasizing green energy

A tax cut for the middle class and a tax hike for the rich

Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court who's a strong liberal voice

New federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Federal funding for family planning

More safeguards for equal pay

A public airing of BushCo's torture memos.

On edit--a repudiation of "abstinence only" sex ed and a push for comprehensive sex ed
******

He's also working hard on a major reform of healthcare.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, then just jump off a bridge and end your meaningless life . . .