Feingold to call for rare presidential censure

[Milton Bradley]

Well done Scribbler, those last few posts of yours were right on target. ( Of course, Osborn already knows I agree with him.)


I have attempted to hammer those points home a few times myself, but I got the feeling Dan thought that more people didn't see the interconnectedness of the two big parties. It's nice to have another person try to reach out to a lost Democrat, and try to get him into the lifeboat.


Come on Dan, you have to want it buddy. ( the truth )


This is what Liberatrian politics has been reduced to since the two party lock. Attempting to reach reasonable people through reason, and pointing out the logical consequences of our actions today.


We have alternated between Republican, and Democratic control for more than one hundred fifty five years, and I sorry to be the one who has to tell you this, but, putting another Democrat in office is not the answer. ( Unless you want more big government, tax, and spend, pork barrel politcs of yesteryear.)


P.S. That was the Republicans making those pork barrel compromises to Democrats, and vise versa that compromised us right out of a constitution, and our voice in government.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have attempted to hammer those points home a few times myself, but I got the feeling Dan thought that more people didn't see the interconnectedness of the two big parties. It's nice to have another person try to reach out to a lost Democrat, and try to get him into the lifeboat.

I like that turn of phrase, Milton. I don't know about "reaching out" on my part, but I am attempting to swing Dan around to my way of thinking. It's his call whether to listen or not. The main reason is I have an enormous amount of respect for him for his devotion to his party. However, I wish he would see the Democrats have had their shot and have chosen to maintain their power, which always involves at least some sleeping with the enemy and only giving lip service to courage, risk and REAL leadership. I'd like to see Dan turn that determination and energy toward another, more deserving party. ANY other party, actually. I pick the L.P. because I happen to be a member of that one.

It's simple logic. They each share half of the government and nothing has gotten any better politically with both of them in charge. Both parties know this all too well and have resorted to the only option available to them. Make people HATE the other guy. If you make people look at the other party with red-eyed hatred they forget all about THEIR party and their complicity in the erosion of our society. I simply want people to calm down and ask their own parties "what have YOU done that you can tell me you are proud of" and demand facts to back up what they say. Then, when they see with a clearer view of what actually goes on they can either abandon their corrupt and tainted party for a viable third alternative or they can stay and FIX their party. Either way, saying the other guy is the antichrist doesn't cut it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scrib Your point is unfair on two levels. One, as I said, I'm sure LP members of Congress would be more than happy to advocate impeachment if they were IN Congress,

Right, and isnt that where change is likely to originate?

and two, 100% of your support is for the Democratic party, which didn't make any impeachment noises while they were voting FOR Bush going into Iraq or voting FOR the unread Patriot Act.

Feingold, for one, voted for neither. If the people (and their so called representatives) rally around HIS message, we will be a lot better off for it. If Ralph and Badnarik get behind that message it would be nice, but it doesnt really matter in the long run. They are drowned out in the white noise, outside the halls of power.

Quote by: Scrib Quit acting like the Democratic Party has no history.

I am not acting like anything. I am looking forward, not backward. I am looking back at all the huge daily mistakes the Neo-cons have made, including mass murder of innocents for profit. I am not going to side with a non-entity when my vote could mean a changing of the guard. The libertarians have had their chances in the past, too. I even if they doubled thier votes, it wouldnt weigh a feather against the powers that be.

As I said before, as bad as Bush is, he didn't create NEARLY the number of problems as he inherited.

I strongly disagree. On every level this waste of flesh has failed humanity here at home and abroad. He inherited peace and turned it into aggressive war. He inherited a surplus treasury and turned that into several trillions in debt. Unemployement has skyrocketed under their policy of rewarding corps. for outsourcing......... I can go on. But, you know the drill.

[Milton Bradley]

You know Dan, I'm a huge C-SPAN guy, I watch all the time.


I have seen these Democrats stepping up, and I do admire them for it, if for no other reason than to have it on record. It's hard not to get totally behind the guys taking the initiative ( lets hope they put it back where they got it ) , and making things happen, but the point we are attempting to illustrate here is that there is more to this than meets the eye.


Once Democrats are back in the majority, and have control of the appropriations again, they will be perfectly content to sit back, and quote the Republican lines about needing the extra-constitutional authority, the Dept. of Fatherland Security, and all the other things you despise the Republican for abusing.


It's a no win situation.

[bishop]

as a whole, the two parties in power definitely don't deserve to be in power.. as a whole, i have little confidence that third parties can do much better - the only plus imo is that they're not part of the establishment... there are good individuals though and some of them are currently in office as members of the two main parties.. i'm not exactly one to get hung up on a politician labelling himself/herself as a republican or democrat (or anything else)... if the ideas are good, and the individual has a solid, consistent record, then that's a good person to support.

personally, i think that feingold is (and has been) by far one of the best democrats out there.. he's definitely been working hard on issues that the majority of the country supports, and he does have backbone and commands respect.. when we go demonizing the two parties, always remember that not all of them deserve to be demonized... some of them are really out there to serve the public rather than themselves.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop personally, i think that feingold is (and has been) by far one of the best democrats out there.. he's definitely been working hard on issues that the majority of the country supports, and he does have backbone and commands respect..

But when it comes down to it, will the party support him or will they be the usual group of squabbling children.

when we go demonizing the two parties, always remember that not all of them deserve to be demonized... some of them are really out there to serve the public rather than themselves.

They should run as independents then. They sure seem to be unable to fix the party from within and if they ARE trying to do what's right they end up carrying the dead weight of the rest of the party on their backs. Along those lines I wouldn't mind seeing the good Democrats and the good Republicans split off and form their own party. If they did it all at once, WHILE they are still in office that party may have a chance. I think that was the biggest thing the L.P. had against them, where they wanted to be elected as an unknown quantity from outside the establishment.

Take just 10 good veteran senators from either party and when election time comes around they would have some kind of existing record to show. Switching parties has been done before, only we need these people to be well respected, popular AND with a record they can be proud of. I know I'd vote for them.

[bishop]

Quote by: scribbler They should run as independents then.

why? they won't get any financing or recognition on a third party ticket.. unless they are an incumbent as you mentioned...

i like the idea of the good ones forming their own coalitions, which they occassionally do.. things have definitely fallen apart in recent years though. and no, i highly doubt that feingold's comrades will give him any real support, save a few who actually have some backbone. for the most part, they're the biggest pussies on the planet and don't deserve a shred of respect.


the real problem, of course, has less to do with what parties these people choose to affiliate themselves with and it has everything to do with the reasons why citizens vote they way they do... it definitely seems to be true that people don't see third parties as being credible alternatives yet.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop why? they won't get any financing or recognition on a third party ticket.. unless they are an incumbent as you mentioned...

That's why I included that requirement. I don't think there's any chance for a third party these days otherwise.

i like the idea of the good ones forming their own coalitions, which they occassionally do.. things have definitely fallen apart in recent years though. and no, i highly doubt that feingold's comrades will give him any real support, save a few who actually have some backbone. for the most part, they're the biggest pussies on the planet and don't deserve a shred of respect.

Agreed, of course.

the real problem, of course, has less to do with what parties these people choose to affiliate themselves with and it has everything to do with the reasons why citizens vote they way they do... it definitely seems to be true that people don't see third parties as being credible alternatives yet.

I don't think they will for at least another full generation. The country is full of sheep who think the lesser of two evils is a reasonable choice.

[Osborn F Enready]

What most people don't seem to understand is that the LIMITED choice you have now, is about to get even more limited, BY LAW.

Right now, as we speak, they are trying to pass laws such as H.R. 4694 which effectively seal the elections to only the two major parties IN LAW.

(as I previously posted here:)
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread9157.html

So as Daniel and others move to defend the two major parties to the people, the people can see right past this to what is really happening. Bi-partisan coercion to limit the power of government to only two parties, whose party leadership is working as "editors" and simply not backing anyone in any race except those who march in lock step to the agendas demands.

They have the same agenda, only one side wants more welfare state than the other.

I am asking Daniel to notice the obvious. Notice that as he trumpets and champions those who are making the only sense in Washington, and notice how they fail in their attempts to really DO ANYTHING. If they do manage censure, or impeachment, it will be due to overwhelming public outcry, as it took that just to get the notion MENTIONED by the two party facade.

Now, here is some simple math.

Our country has been independent since 1776-89 depending on where you want to start to measure.
So, 230 years, or 217 years respectively.

Out of that amount of time, for the last 156 years (Fillmore to the Presidency in July 1850) there has not been a party other than Republicans or Democrats in office since Fillmore left. (I am not a fan of Fillmore's by the way, just noting history.)

230 years
-156 years
=74 years this country was run by OTHER than, the two major parties.

During that 74 years, not one, but two Federal Goverments were created by existing leadership. First the Articles of Confederation, then The Federal Constitution which replaced it and "supposedly" still is recognized and "enforced" today. The legal groundwork was laid to end slavery in the Bill of Rights, and the only thing still required was public discourse to DEMAND to be recognized. The legal groundwork was laid to allow womens suffrage to end, the only thing still required was public discourse to DEMAND to be recognized. The thing to notice here, is that from this point on, in about 1850, government started a "drive" towards build-up and organization, or centralization, while the people moved towards more political freedom in opposition to this build-up, or centralization in a struggle for definitive individuality, as opposed to a "collective".

AS you can see in this chronology of media technology from this website( http://www.cedmagic.com/history/ ), as many others, media technology really started in the late 1870's, and has ENTIRELY blossomed and been CONSTRAINED by the two-party monopoly. All the media laws, all the media expansion, all the media focus, has been undertaken by the two parties that have used it to suppress all oppossition since its inception. They created and wrote the guidelines and limits for the FCC.

This country was started, and grown under the ideas, and ideals of Libertarian government. Libertarians by action, not by name, created this nation and the limits which have kept the little remaining liberty we have today even after 156 years of bi-partisan controlled efforts to dismantle the core of the ideology.

They have proven ineffective, as their policies have shown in Social Security, Public Education, Federal Banking, Fiat currency, Foreign Relations, War Powers, Executive Order Privilidge abuse and of course most damaging to the world, the perversion of the free trade market ideals.

They are dismantling the nation bit by bit, piece by piece, and so slowly that even the most astute observers have to keep on alert full-time to catch all the individually menial, but collectively staggering transgressions from Constitution to Tyranny.

They have been bringing the water from ice cold to boil, over the last 156 years Daniel, and just now are people starting to feel the heat, and eye up the fire.

WE will either jump into the fire (republicans), stay in the water (democrats), or we will overtake the controls of the oven (libertarians).

All parties have to fall into two categories in eventuality.

Category 1:
Pro-Constitution as written, as per contract law. (libertarians)

Category 2:
Anti-Constitution as written, as per contract law. (ALLLLLLLLLL other parties from Greens to the Pot Party, Democrats to Republicans, Constitutionalists to Socialists.)

I am only trying to help you see who is really selling you out, as the only way that matters Dan, you, the individual, as affected by law.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop as a whole, the two parties in power definitely don't deserve to be in power.. as a whole, i have little confidence that third parties can do much better - the only plus imo is that they're not part of the establishment... there are good individuals though and some of them are currently in office as members of the two main parties.. i'm not exactly one to get hung up on a politician labelling himself/herself as a republican or democrat (or anything else)... if the ideas are good, and the individual has a solid, consistent record, then that's a good person to support.

You know, I would take that position as well, and have in the past, but time, and time again they prove that there is peer pressure in Washington, and if you wear their label, you need to part of the team. I donnot believe we have time to make this mistake, or learn this lesson again. We need to be smarter that that.

Quote by: bishop personally, i think that feingold is (and has been) by far one of the best democrats out there.. he's definitely been working hard on issues that the majority of the country supports, and he does have backbone and commands respect.. when we go demonizing the two parties, always remember that not all of them deserve to be demonized... some of them are really out there to serve the public rather than themselves.

I can appreciate the sentiment, and half agree with this point. Mckiney, Paul, Conyers, and a few others seem to be some real stand up people, but I don't see them defending that constitution with thier careers, or their lives. Personally, I expect a little more from somebody sworn to protect our only defense against this type of tyranny.

[bishop]

Quote by: milton I can appreciate the sentiment, and half agree with this point. Mckiney, Paul, Conyers, and a few others seem to be some real stand up people, but I don't see them defending that constitution with thier careers, or their lives. Personally, I expect a little more from somebody sworn to protect our only defense against this type of tyranny.

with their lives?? what do you propose - some senator/congressman walking into congress guns blazing, holding everyone hostage until he gets some special legislation passed? sorry, but i'm not moved by such bravado.. in a civilized society, elected representatives voice their opinions through their votes.. and i can guarantee that even your most favorite representative probably cast a couple votes that you didn't like.. that's life.

personally, i have a hard-on for intelligent people who are independent, anti-deficit and have solid ideas for specific issues.. i'm the least bit interested in politicians who have nothing substantive to offer as they lecture the public about the constitution. (i also happen to think that the constitution could use a hefty overhaul.)

anyways, back to feingold... he is a very good example of a politician from a major, corrupt, party who consistently works to serve the middle class - his voting record proves this to be true.

my vote isn't guaranteed, but thus far, i like what i see in feingold... and, i can't see myself voting for any republican (not mccain, not romney, not gulianni, etc..).. for the dems, i don't like biden (although i think he's the most intelligent guy on the hill), would never vote for clinton, etc... i refuse to give my vote to badnarick's dipshit self (hopefully someone else can win in the LP's primaries who's worth voting for).. i don't like the greens and their die-hard thirst for communism/socialism.. i believe the constitution party is a bunch of bible thumpers in sheep's clothing.. the reform party seems to have largely dissolved...

what's left? doesn't seem like much to pick from imo.. i think for now, i'll say that i like feingold more than anyone else who's currently in the fray. bush has proven how one man can cause an entire political party to shift focus and change direction.. unfortunately, bush's priorities are ass-backwards, so the republicans have gotten worse rather than better.. but, under a competent and strong leader (which feingold is, undeniably), it's possible that he can help turn his party around as well...

there's definitely a lot of time left until the elections and i'm sure i'll change my mind at least 10 more times... but, i do know for certain that i'm not going to vote for anyone, or any party "just because" they're an outsider..

[Milton Bradley]

They should attempt to place them under citizens arrest, or go down swinging in the first round.


If anybody actually has the power to demand that action be taken to enforce the constitution, it is the elected officials. They need to make it happen, no matter how. I am all for peaceful resolution, but I am not above a little good old fashioned violence if it is called for.



The thing is, short of pointing, and tattling on the other side of the aisle, they really aren''t doing all that much except getting some of things entered into the official records, and illuminating the problems to the few who actually pay attention.


I expect a little more from my public servants.

[bishop]

heh... and what, exactly, would a senator from the LP do differently? open up a can of whoop-ass on everyone sitting near him?

suggesting that a politician should get into a fistfight in order to persuade different kinds of legislation has to be one of the dumbest ideas i've seen here in a while... (and thinking that it will result in improved legislation is even dumber.)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop heh... and what, exactly, would a senator from the LP do differently? open up a can of whoop-ass on everyone sitting near him? suggesting that a politician should get into a fistfight in order to persuade different kinds of legislation has to be one of the dumbest ideas i've seen here in a while... (and thinking that it will result in improved legislation is even dumber.)

I said they should attempt to place them under citizens arrest. Going down swinging was more a figure a speech, but I would find that kind of zeal in defending that document comforting.


Is it so far fetched to suggest such things when the punnishment for certain transgressions is death?


I certainly don't think so, particularly in light of what was required to found this experiment to begin with. I guess I'm just a little more old fashioned in that sense.

[xyzer]

Though I agree with scribbler et al,that the two political parties are interconnected in thought and deed I think Fiengolds folly is just that! Political manuevering!
An honest concern over the surveillance issue should have been pursued years ago by those Senators and Reps who were made privy to it. Pursued quietly through channels to the Whitehouse and/or the
Attorney Generals office. There is no evidence that such a non political approach was ever tried. Even Fiengold could have done it without seeking press coverage. His manuever smacks of that of Rep Conyers saying just before the last election Bush was going to reinstitute the draft . it was pure politics and came from a Congressman whose organization was the one which could renew the draft...the President could not without the consent of congress.
We also have senator Fienstine(who was briefed years back about the program) saying it was a valuable tool in the war on terror. Even the democratic leadership is lukewarm about this obviously political move. Plus the majority of thinking americans who believe that calls from known terrorists to people inside our borders should be intercepted and monitored.
Acting to protect the people of this country in a global war against terrorist the President (Commander in Chief) is enjoined to use any means possible...There is precedent in past wars. Plus it makes sense. No one has come forward and claimed their rights were violasted by this wartime tactic?
Fiengold is a jerk!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Os I am asking Daniel to notice the obvious. Notice that as he trumpets and champions those who are making the only sense in Washington, and notice how they fail in their attempts to really DO ANYTHING.

They havent failed yet, some things take a little time. What has your party done? Much less. I understand that your party doesnt really exist as far as getting anything done (in the real world). But thats OK. The Big Dawgs are very patient with your yapping while they eat. First.

You have a right (actually it isnt really a "Right") to vote for the wind in the upcoming elections. It may make you feel better because at least the wind is honest. .....But it wont bring any real change as far as oversighht and/or impeachment is concerned. I applaud you for standing on principle, until it comes to actually voting (for the wind or the rain or the LP), at that point you may as well vote for fascism because we need your vote to Fire the Liars. You can vote for more of the same if you want. My vote will be cast for dems. On the principle of arresting this reckless administration. I will not vote for the wind, because I dont want innocent blood on my hands. Think it all the way through. We can fight bush, but not by insisting on non-parties to do it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Think it all the way through. We can fight bush, but not by insisting on non-parties to do it.

I have been thinking it through since 1979.


It's not just Bush, it's the overwhelming majority of people who wear either thr donkeys, or elephants on their lapels. Republican, Democrat, it's the same thing. Two heads of the same beast.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Two heads of the same beast.

Somewhat true. However one of the heads needs to be downsized. RIGHT NOW!!!

This fall we can do something about it. The battle you and Os are engaged in will not be won or lost in November.

If you dont see the urgency of usurping the republican monopoly, and doing something about it.... I just dont know what to tell you.

We have a mafia operation running our country with carte blanche.
Election day is the only day I can complain.

However, I dont have any right to complain if I dont vote for a viable improvement. You can vote for Patrick Henry or Tom Paine if you want.
But thats really just a wasted vote. Because they are dead.

I cant afford it.

None of us can afford to be "hopeless romantics" like Don Quixote, whose intentions are just. But at the end of the day you have a bunch of dead sheep and damaged windmills.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't partake in the cycle Dan.

I would rather see the nation fail from this leadership, and participate in rebuilding it through revolt then submit to vote for either of these...past failures, future failures, corrupt from the ground-up partisan sheeple.

You think saving the country under democratic ideals is better than failure, I don't.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I would rather see the nation fail from this leadership, .....

I wonder if you will want to retrieve any of those words if "fail" involves a genocide. When a peaceful solution is possible. Democracy will work if we fight for voters rights and fair elections. And use the apparatus provided by the US Constitution.

Murder should be a very, very last resort.
We dont want to become what we hate, do we?
You sound like you are chompin at the bit, there buddy.
We need a Velvet Revolution.