Feingold to call for rare presidential censure

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Milton So all I had to do to rectify the situation was compromise my morals, and vote for evil men to rule us.

Are you sure Kerry is evil? I know we could do better, but he isnt blatantly foul. Like we know bush is. Kerry didnt sound like he would end the war immediately, but we all know for a fact about bushs "stay the course" (regardless of icebergs) plans. We have a duty on election day, to choose the best man for the job. You chose bush if you chose anyone but the guy who could beat him. It seems a bit childish, like the kid who wants to have everything his way. Or he will take his toys and go home. Making everybody else sad. We needed a change in leadership, and we all knew it would be close, especially in Ohio. Because of the corruption in the election system and in Ohios top offices, election fraud was entertained. It will happen again because the people of Ohio are not really very concerned about blatant criminals in office.
The people need to speak as one. In alliance and only by alliance to remove Blackwell from office and prosecute to make a lasting example of what happens to shitbags like him. But I presume he will be elevated to governor because Ohio hates itself and America.

Two election cycles ago, I was having similar converations with Republicans ( with whom I partially agreed, like yourself ) about the flip side of this predicament. They said I should vote for the "lesser evil" to get those prevent thos Democrats from gaining office. ( Again, I partially agreed ) So here the cycle repeats itself again, the extremes try to sway the middle outward to prevent the other extreme from taking the country down the wrong road, rinse, and repeat. I would think you would be able to spot this obvious flaw iin your own logic.

So now we all know the beast that reigns is corrupt to the core and has nothing to do with Republican values like "conservatism" and "compassion" nor anything to do with "moral high ground". Should we not do everything in our power (on the only day we CAN do something) to remove them? No. You want to play games, your way or the highway, even if it is worse for the country.

[Osborn F Enready]

Last night on Frontline, they gave a little statistic that the amount of "registered" voters who claimed a third party, grew over 300% over the last 2 years.

People are waking up Dan, you can't keep them in the dark forever.

Might be time to give up on the "lesser of two evils" lie.

Is this enough to change things as it is right NOW? No. But as more truth comes out, more people will be making the change, and as more people know, more people talk. It is an exponential shift we are about to see away from the left-right, Neu-liberal-Neo-Conservative, extremes, to the moderate middle independents.

Interesting indeed.

[bishop]

Quote by: milton I can't believe that person who reads the same stories here that I do can actually attempt to reduce this down to such a simple shit flinging contest. You know as well as I do that this is many, very complex issues, but fundamentally it's about how the Democrats, and Republicans all agree to spend our money, and stack our courts with judicial activists who legislate from the bench. Corporate welfare, farm subsidies, the Executive power grab, locking out Third party opposition, etc,etc, etc...

you can't simply shift blame to the democrats/republicans to excuse the LP's ineptitude.. that's the same as democrats complainng that republicans stole their thunder.. it's high time the LP stops this bitchfest about what the two-party system has produced and starts developing real solutions to real problems. if it ever hopes to be taken seriously by the public, it will do this.. they did a good job with their withdrawal plan for iraq, and it seems they stopped right there.. amazingly enough, there is a whole lot of nothing on the party's website with regard to big issues like the deficit/debt, terrorism, etc..

obviously, it seems that you incorrectly perceive criticism of the LP as some sort of veiled support for the democrats/republicans - which definitely is not the case. my original premise here has been that all of these parties suck, for a variety of reasons, and i'm just supporting that argument by picking on the LP. i could do the same thing with any other party - because they're all pretty horrible, just in different ways.

go to the DLC's website and you'll see lots of substantive articles about specific issues - it's too bad that the party's members, by in large, don't seem to have any inclination to pursue those solutions.. looking at that just highlights why the dems don't even have the balls to support one of their party's most solid members, feingold.

i see these weaknesses, be they in lack of courage, intellect, whatever as being a good reason why the "good" members of the two-party system should break off and form their own party.. since they're already in office, they will have name recognition and would be able to finance their campaigns better than the usual third party crowd. and all the buzz that they'd create could attract new members. i know that there are already some coalitions like the democrats' "blue dogs", they just need to try and grow these among like-minded politicians. otherwise, we're left with a corrupt two-party system and a multitude of third parties that are going nowhere fast.

[bishop]

Quote by: osborn Last night on Frontline, they gave a little statistic that the amount of "registered" voters who claimed a third party, grew over 300% over the last 2 years.

despite that increase, though, not a single third party managed to get even 1% of the popular vote.. maybe if third parties grow at the same rate for the next 20-30 years, then they can finally win the reigns of power.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Last night on Frontline, they gave a little statistic that the amount of "registered" voters who claimed a third party, grew over 300% over the last 2 years.

300% x 1% = 3%

Let me know when you get closer to 33%.

Until then I will vote for the best man who can win.
My one vote could be the difference in whether children are murdered for the profit of zillionaires, or not.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Are you sure Kerry is evil? I know we could do better, but he isnt blatantly foul. Like we know bush is. Kerry didnt sound like he would end the war immediately, but we all know for a fact about bushs "stay the course" (regardless of icebergs) plans.

Kerry is a US Senator, and as such has been a part of an organization that personifies incompetence and corruption. I don't think Kerry is evil, nor do I think Bush is. That word is a little too heavy to use in a single politician's case. Now, politicians as an aggregate is another thing entirely.
You know the president is merely a front man for the government and Congress is not only where the REAL power is, but where the REAL blame must be attached. Bush could do very few of the things you hate him for if Congress didn't LET him.

You need to look at it a different way, and that is Bush isn't necessarily evil but he REPRESENTS the true evil and the true power, which is Congress. Who answers the phone at the White House is of secondary importance. Owing to his seniority, Kerry is a big part of that true evil and anything truly positive from a Kerry presidency will be pure window dressing. Never forget most of the problems this country faces were here before Bush and Kerry would not be the FIRST Democrat president so you can't pin everything on the GOP either. And if you can find fault with the Democratic party and NOT with John Kerry, bear in mind that without the support of the corrupt Democrats, Kerry would be no different as a third party president. So he must be beholden to the Democratic party and you start the exact same cycle all over again.

(sorry Dan, I didn't see this one so I'll add it here)

you can't simply shift blame to the democrats/republicans to excuse the LP's ineptitude.. that's the same as democrats complainng that republicans stole their thunder..

Where is there blame to SHIFT and how can a party with ZERO political power have ANY "ineptitude" in how this government is run? Geez, Dan, that's a stretch even for you. The Democrats and Republicans do NOT get blame "shifted" to them. They both EARNED the blame because there is no one else TO blame.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel 300% x 1% = 3% Let me know when you get closer to 33%. Until then I will vote for the best man who can win.

And by that statement you have committed yourself to perpetuating the WHOLE government exactly as it exists today.

My one vote could be the difference in whether children are murdered for the profit of zillionaires, or not.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Democratic party is the party of the poor and middle class. I would be glad to support the party of no tax increases and no national debt. What do you call that party again?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler (sorry Dan, I didn't see this one so I'll add it here) Quote: you can't simply shift blame to the democrats/republicans to excuse the LP's ineptitude.. that's the same as democrats complainng that republicans stole their thunder.. <snip> ..... Geez, Dan, that's a stretch even for you.

You are quoting bishop in post #123, not me.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Kerry is a US Senator, and as such has been a part of an organization that personifies incompetence and corruption.

So that makes Badnarik a better man? His LACK of experience? :)

[bishop]

Quote by: scribbler Where is there blame to SHIFT and how can a party with ZERO political power have ANY "ineptitude" in how this government is run? Geez, Dan, that's a stretch even for you. The Democrats and Republicans do NOT get blame "shifted" to them. They both EARNED the blame because there is no one else TO blame.

i said that, actually.. i meant ineptitude in the sense that the LP's primary tactic (as well as all the other third parties from what i've seen) is to spend the vast majority of the time talking about how the two-party system sucks.. and, this is little different than what the democrats do with the republicans these days - tons of complaining and little (if any) discussion about alternative policies...

i didn't mean ineptitude as far as their record in office goes, because as you said, the LP has no political power at all - so they have no real record to speak of.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Censure Hearing next Friday

Link WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday it would hold a hearing next week on a call by a Democratic lawmaker to censure President George W. Bush for his domestic spy program. In a one-sentence notice, the panel said the hearing would be held next Friday by the order of its chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, who has opposed censure. more...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop despite that increase, though, not a single third party managed to get even 1% of the popular vote.. maybe if third parties grow at the same rate for the next 20-30 years, then they can finally win the reigns of power.

I hate to point out the obvious once again, but where are people going to hear about political parties if not in the debates, or the news?


That kind of viods that whole line of reasoning, does it not?


We cannot be heard. Because of that, we get no financing, because of that, we can't be heard.

Quote by: bishop you can't simply shift blame to the democrats/republicans to excuse the LP's ineptitude.. that's the same as democrats complainng that republicans stole their thunder...

I'm not, I am blaming their owners, the evil corporations that prevent anything not clearly pertaining exclusively to Republicans, or Democrats from even being mentioned on the news. Unless it's a Ross Perot, who can buy his way in like the other crooks.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You are quoting bishop in post #123, not me.

Oooops. Sorry.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel So that makes Badnarik a better man? His LACK of experience? :)

How many people are born with ANY experience? I'd like to see a Libertarian candidate come out the same way the rest of them do, from Congress or even a state governorship. I do not support the LP push for a president every election.

At this point I should restate my long-held position. I don't WANT a Libertarian president, not this election, the next one or possibly even the one after that. Not until there are at LEAST 10-12 Libertarians in the Senate and at least 15-20 in the House and (depending on the candidate) maybe not even THEN. A Libertarian president with a Republicrat Congress would be like Al Sharpton running a fundraiser at a KKK rally. Not much support there.

But then again, experience may be overrated as all I see are "experienced" men and women tearing this country down, brick by brick.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Are you sure Kerry is evil? I know we could do better, but he isnt blatantly foul. Like we know bush is. Kerry didnt sound like he would end the war immediately, but we all know for a fact about bushs "stay the course" (regardless of icebergs) plans. We have a duty on election day, to choose the best man for the job. You chose bush if you chose anyone but the guy who could beat him. It seems a bit childish, like the kid who wants to have everything his way. Or he will take his toys and go home. Making everybody else sad. We needed a change in leadership, and we all knew it would be close, especially in Ohio. Because of the corruption in the election system and in Ohios top offices, election fraud was entertained. It will happen again because the people of Ohio are not really very concerned about blatant criminals in office. The people need to speak as one. In alliance and only by alliance to remove Blackwell from office and prosecute to make a lasting example of what happens to shitbags like him. But I presume he will be elevated to governor because Ohio hates itself and America. So now we all know the beast that reigns is corrupt to the core and has nothing to do with Republican values like "conservatism" and "compassion" nor anything to do with "moral high ground". Should we not do everything in our power (on the only day we CAN do something) to remove them? No. You want to play games, your way or the highway, even if it is worse for the country.

It's kind of funnny to think about it that way.


What makes you think I would have chose Gore over Bush in the first place?


As a matter of fact, I think I helped sway a few votes over to the Republicans for that election, but only based on the truths of the Democrats own duplicity, and closed door deals. I only pointed out the facts.


I also opined about how I thought it would be better for people of my mindset to vote for Bush over Gore, because I believe it would be easier for the everage citizen to take back the country from evil corporations ( who ironically used to be located within our borders ), than it would taking it back from the Chinese, and all the other countries Al Gore, and Company wanted to give your money too. ( Little did I know Bush was equally, if not more supportive of all of the outsourcing, and pro globalist legislation like NAFTA, and CAFTA that have us in the same situation.) Just more proof that they are just different heads of the same beast working towards the same ends from different angles.


That is the part I wish you would catch on to. Sure, by alternating between Democrats, and Republicans we have a course that weaves about like a drunkard, but both parties have the course set to the same globalist course. They just have different perceptions about how to get us there.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop i said that, actually.. i meant ineptitude in the sense that the LP's primary tactic (as well as all the other third parties from what i've seen) is to spend the vast majority of the time talking about how the two-party system sucks.. and, this is little different than what the democrats do with the republicans these days - tons of complaining and little (if any) discussion about alternative policies...

At the candidate level (as opposed to forums and such) I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe the LP on the national stage HAS a lot of time to spend, to start with. You can't waste what you don't have. However, in the few chances the national candidates (Marrou and Browne come to mind) have had to make it to TV, they HAVE outlined what should be done. Chances are the 18 or 20 viewers of C-SPAN missed those programs though, and they don't get invited anywhere else, that's for sure. And since the Republicans and Democrats DO nothing but complain about the other guy, and it SELLS, it seems expected that the LP would emulate them. It won't WORK, but it is to be expected.

i didn't mean ineptitude as far as their record in office goes, because as you said, the LP has no political power at all - so they have no real record to speak of.

And they won't GET any until they collect a few senators and congressmen, or governors.

[bishop]

Quote by: milton I hate to point out the obvious once again, but where are people going to hear about political parties if not in the debates, or the news? That kind of viods that whole line of reasoning, does it not? We cannot be heard. Because of that, we get no financing, because of that, we can't be heard.

what a load of bullshit.. last time i checked, the internet has not been taken over by the big evil powers.. venture over to www.lp.org and all you'll encounter is a website full of fluff, devoid of substance.. i've been looking for a coherent set of policy proposals from the LP's leadership, online where they should be readily available - and i consistently come up short (or all i encounter is some nutty fringe-inspired policy)..

sorry, but i am not persuaded in the slightest by these crybaby arguments demonizing the media and any other group that could be blamed.. and you can repeat those arguments till you're blue in the face, and i still won't buy them - not as long as the LP continues to prescribe fanciful fluff for our country's many problems.

Quote by: scribbler At the candidate level (as opposed to forums and such) I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe the LP on the national stage HAS a lot of time to spend, to start with. You can't waste what you don't have. However, in the few chances the national candidates (Marrou and Browne come to mind) have had to make it to TV, they HAVE outlined what should be done. Chances are the 18 or 20 viewers of C-SPAN missed those programs though, and they don't get invited anywhere else, that's for sure. And since the Republicans and Democrats DO nothing but complain about the other guy, and it SELLS, it seems expected that the LP would emulate them. It won't WORK, but it is to be expected.

tv isn't everything imo.. (i'm definitely arguing this from my own point of view - since i watch very little tv.) it's difficult to find policies crafted directly by the LP online - but i can readily find policy proposals from the DLC and RNC.. looking at the DLC's website, i see a lot of ideas about controlling federal spending.. by contrast, i found nothing on the RNC's website about controlling spending, and a whole lot of hot air from the LP.

should i be expected to have to monitor cspan's schedule just to catch a glimpse of detailed LP policy proposals? i don't think so.

and, while i regularly visit cato's website, i don't view that organization as being a real libertarian shop - even though that's the common characterization... it's amazing that the LP hasn't enlisted support from cato (or vice-versa).. i understand that cato can't directly support the party, but it doesn't even comment on the LP's candidates. when you look at the republican and democratic parties, they have solid relationships with multiple think-tanks (full of reputable policy wonks)... on the other hand, cato is the sole "libertarian" think-tank out there of note, and they have an estranged relationship with the LP... for any ideological movement to succeed, it MUST have the backing of intellectuals. and right now, the LP has a lot of work to do in that department, as do all of the other third parties...

(on a side note, i think that the intellectual community has largely abandoned the republican party - which is why you see such focus on religious/cultural issues because christian fundamentalists have stuck by their side.)

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Milt What makes you think I would have chose Gore over Bush in the first place?

Common sense.

It was obvious what a retard bush is, even back then. He is a disgrace to the country. I could tell back then that he was a liar. I can spot a con, its a shame not everybody can discern the character of people just by body language. Let alone after they have spoken.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop what a load of bullshit.. last time i checked, the internet has not been taken over by the big evil powers.. venture over to www.lp.org and all you'll encounter is a website full of fluff, devoid of substance.. i've been looking for a coherent set of policy proposals from the LP's leadership, online where they should be readily available - and i consistently come up short (or all i encounter is some nutty fringe-inspired policy).. sorry, but i am not persuaded in the slightest by these crybaby arguments demonizing the media and any other group that could be blamed.. and you can repeat those arguments till you're blue in the face, and i still won't buy them - not as long as the LP continues to prescribe fanciful fluff for our country's many problems. tv isn't everything imo.. (i'm definitely arguing this from my own point of view - since i watch very little tv.) it's difficult to find policies crafted directly by the LP online - but i can readily find policy proposals from the DLC and RNC.. looking at the DLC's website, i see a lot of ideas about controlling federal spending.. by contrast, i found nothing on the RNC's website about controlling spending, and a whole lot of hot air from the LP. should i be expected to have to monitor cspan's schedule just to catch a glimpse of detailed LP policy proposals? i don't think so.

Sorry bishop, but this is like your other analogy about the Libertarian economists dropping off the radar 30 years ago. Just like in that scenario, realistically, what "proposals" are Libertarians going to bring to the tabe when the whole concept of constitutional government is absent? The economists ideas stopped flowing because the free market died, thus nothing left to study, and offer comments upon. Our constitutional government died, and again for those determined to follow the law, there was nothing left in which to participate. What are they going to do, propose "unconstitutional legislation" just to be one of the guys? What proposal from an outsider in even going to be considered?


Inside the circles, they'll just point, and laugh commenting about how "cute" it is that the little guys still think they can "play" government, and maybe even sit at the adult table one day. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:


The truth seems to be that we are not viable candidates because their is a culture of corruption, and people don't even want to see the good guys win any more. Our prisons are filled with Blue Collar criminals while White Collar crime goes almost unpunbished. People who get truly needy, and steal a loaf of bread to prevent starvation go to the slammer, while people who steal 3000 pension funds go to the Bahamas. ( After they pay a small fine imposed by the *cough* courts *cough* )


I made no contention about the fluff on the website, or about the viability of any "proposals" coming out of the Libertarian party except the the need to obey the constitution, so get off it already, jeez. Maybe you need to write them a letter, and tell them about your dislike of their "fluff". Perhaps you could even ask why they don't make proposals that make it to the medias attention?


PS The "internet" is not the "media", and though it may be the place you choose to get your news, I think you are still in the minority. In my opinion the televised media is a major player in the reason Libertarians have no voice in contemporary politics. We are intentionally shut out.

Quote by: bishop (on a side note, i think that the intellectual community has largely abandoned the republican party - which is why you see such focus on religious/cultural issues because christian fundamentalists have stuck by their side.)

You being an apologist for these people doesn't help either. If you, or the people you are making excuses for cannot recognize the need to elect people who will obey, and defend the constitution you will be forever relinquished to the armchair critic, because your voice has been lost. (,...and you know it.)


I don't recognize anything about the Republicans, or Democrats as being even remotely within the scope of constitutional government. So just where does that leave people like myself? Let me provide the answer. Out in the dark my friend, out in the dark. ( I contend thats why I am able to observe so much, because I'm on the outside looking in, and you can see very well from the dark into the light.)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Common sense. It was obvious what a retard bush is, even back then. He is a disgrace to the country. I could tell back then that he was a liar. I can spot a con, its a shame not everybody can discern the character of people just by body language. Let alone after they have spoken.

I guess you missed where I typed...

"I also opined about how I thought it would be better for people of my mindset to vote for Bush over Gore, because I believe it would be easier for the average citizen to take back the country from evil corporations ( who ironically used to be located within our borders ), than it would taking it back from the Chinese, and all the other countries Al Gore, and Company wanted to give your money too."


Seems like you're also missing all the history of the Democrat party prior to the Bush administration.