In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....

Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?

It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.

Too many labels. What is meant by "liberal" and what is meant by "conservative"? The definitions go back and forth. Personally I have things I like from both ends of the spectrum - Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich '08! - even if they may seem incompatible.

It's an interesting op-ed and it seems to me that it is very on the money. I think that the system is to blame for crafting a political creature like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; candidates like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich can't be elected because they take a stance on hard issues, but the slimey, slithery political contortionists are electable because they take all the easy answers and appeal to the lowest common denominator - like the main problem with the sift, popularity does not equal quality, and the presidency is sadly a popularity contest.

It really seems like what happened to Larry Agran was very similar to Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich's experiences. Though for Agran, without the internet to carry his message, he was entirely at the whim of televised media.

I had never heard of him, but does anyone know if he generated he same following that Paul has built?

The liberal blogs are all sending out "call your representatives, NOW" messages.

Kos had a conspicuously brief comment on it:

When we started this "netroots" thing, we worked to get "more and better Democrats" elected. At first, we focused on the "more" part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the "better" part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the "better" part.

That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large.

We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010.

We're going to have to count on the Ron Pauls, the Dennis Kuciniches, Chris Dodds, Russ Feingolds, Robert Wexlers, and Pat Leahys to pull out some sort of gambit to block this (again).

It's shameful that this is being done, and that they're trying to give themselves immunity, when there's not likely to be a court decision that penalizes anyone for it in a meaningful way. Hell, no one was going to wind up charged with treason for betraying their oath to the Constitution.

We'd just fine AT&T a month's profit from iPhone service, and say "justice served."

At least that way, it'd be on the record as being something the government is still saying is against the law, rather than just written on some piece of hide stretched out in a display case in DC.

If there are any sifters out there who feel this should be stopped, please, call your representatives, for numbers, go here.

One of the few Democrats with balls, Congressman Dennis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment against President George Bush on the House floor late last Monday. It’s all there - the lies, the use of torture, the ignoring of Congress, and the using of propaganda to start a war. Mr. Kucinich has tried unsuccessfully to start impeachment hearings before on Bush and also VP Dick Cheney in the past. Can he succeed now? Here's how you can help.

One of the few Democrats with balls, Congressman Dennis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment against President George Bush on the House floor late last Monday. It’s all there - the lies, the use of torture, the ignoring of Congress, and the using of propaganda to start a war. Mr. Kucinich has tried unsuccessfully to start impeachment hearings before on Bush and also VP Dick Cheney in the past. Can he succeed now? Here's how you can help.

One of the few Democrats with balls, Congressman Dennis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment against President George Bush on the House floor late last Monday. It’s all there - the lies, the use of torture, the ignoring of Congress, and the using of propaganda to start a war. Mr. Kucinich has tried unsuccessfully to start impeachment hearings before on Bush and also VP Dick Cheney in the past. Can he succeed now? Here's how you can help.

One of the few Democrats with balls, Congressman Dennis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment against President George Bush on the House floor late last Monday. It’s all there - the lies, the use of torture, the ignoring of Congress, and the using of propaganda to start a war. Mr. Kucinich has tried unsuccessfully to start impeachment hearings before on Bush and also VP Dick Cheney in the past. Can he succeed now? Here's how you can help.

I'm going to cut this off when the World Socialist website goes heavy into the socialism:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/impe-j12.shtml

"House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush
By Patrick Martin
12 June 2008

In a display of parliamentary maneuvering that combined cynicism and cowardice, Democratic members of the US House of Representatives voted unanimously to kill an impeachment resolution against President Bush introduced by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Kucinich himself participated fully in the farce. He introduced the resolution Monday and read out the 35 articles of impeachment for crimes ranging from the lying pretexts given to the American people for the war in Iraq to torture at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and illegal domestic spying. Then he moved to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman John Conyers has long rejected any effort to hold Bush constitutionally accountable.

The 251-166 margin of the vote, held on a roll call Wednesday, saw all 227 Democrats—including Kucinich and his lone co-sponsor, Robert Wexler of Florida—joined by 24 Republicans move to dispose of the resolution. Voting against were 166 Republicans, who sought to force a debate on impeachment for the purpose of embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership.

After Kucinich introduced the measure Monday and spent more than four hours reading the entire text into the Congressional Record, House Republicans utilized a parliamentary provision to force the clerk of the House to read the text out loud all over again on Tuesday, consuming another four hours and keeping the House in session until after midnight. The purpose was to rub the Democrats’ noses in their own refusal to take action to back up their occasional bursts of anti-Bush demagogy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

A public vote in the House of Representatives would, however, find a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress siding with Bush against the sentiments of their own constituents. The Democratic leadership seeks to block any vote to conceal as much as possible their role as the last line of defense for the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds. They are well aware that the adoption of an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial, would deal a major blow against the White House as an institution and undermine the legitimacy of all Bush’s actions as “commander-in-chief,” especially in the war in Iraq.

It would also inevitably raise the question of who in Congress was complicit with Bush’s criminal conduct over the past seven years—tarring Democrats as well as Republicans, since a majority of Senate Democrats and a large number of House Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Many other actions listed in Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were given near-unanimous support by the Democrats.

More fundamentally, the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party and it seeks to uphold the authority of the bourgeois state..."

bourgeois, stop.

Still some valid points though - rare you'll see me agreeing with that site, but there you go.

I Just Fixed these, you can release them from your dead playlist Thanks for the heads up
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hodgman-explains-the-World-Bank
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hillary-on-the-Insider
http://www.videosift.com/video/Countdown-Special-Comment-Bush-Cheney-Should-Resign
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Simpsons-India-Outsourcing
http://www.videosift.com/video/Iraq-War-Teens-Voicing-their-concerns
http://www.videosift.com/video/Great-Candidate-in-the-2000-Election
http://www.videosift.com/video/ATTNSA-Spying-Whistleblower
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dennis-Kucinichs-Opening-During-Global-Warming-Debate
http://www.videosift.com/video/Wrestling-With-Manhood-Homophobia

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I'd say there are three big reasons why the US is still in Iraq. The first is that without someone there to monitor the situation, the country would devolve into utter chaos. You think it's the wild west right now, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was zero security and the various factions could have a go at each other unrestrained. Regardless of whether going in was right or wrong, I think leaving now would just result, in the end, in even more death.
- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?
The second reason is that Americans really don't care one way or the other. They care just about enough to b tch about it on Internet forums and that's it. You don't see masses of people walking out of their jobs or going on hunger strikes until the President recalls the troops. American citizens could shut down the country tomorrow if they really wanted the troops home. But no, most citizens' commitment to the cause goes as far as complaining and hoping their elected officials do something. Hell, the illegal immigrants held bigger demonstrations protesting the new immigration bills than any US citizens ever have protesting the war.
- Are you kidding? walking out on our jobs? What's that gonna do? Put us further into debt that's what. And hunger strike? Wow, HAHAHA. That's rich. I'm sure we've all seen PLENTY of demonstrations. You can even find a few on the sift if you'd really like to. Furthermore, this describes little about what we're still doing there. It doesn't answer any questions other that "what are we doing about it?" (and it's a ridiculous answer at that).
The final reason Americans are still there... because even if they decided to leave right this very second it would take something like a year to actually ferry all the troops and equipment out. So at the very least the US will have some sort of presence there for the next year.

- Well let's get it started now


Congratulations for proving my point about being willing to bitch about it on an Internet forum but not do anything to get the ball rolling.

If you're not willing to show a commitment to change, then why should the administration change its policy? That's the answer to your question about why we're still there: the current administration thinks it's in our vital interests to be there and citizens like you aren't doing anything, besides flame people on the Internet, to dissuade them that they're wrong. It's not ridiculous at all to ask what citizens are doing to stop the war. Remember my example about the illegal immigrant demonstrations? Notice how no new immigration bills ever got passed? From the independence of India from Britain to the Civil Rights Movement to the end of apartheid in South Africa, peaceful (and sometimes not so peaceful) demonstrations have shown their ability to effect change. Don't be so quick to discount them.

>> ^rottenseed:

- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?

So you bombed the country back into the stoneage, killed about a million civilians in the process, raped them of the only wealth they had and now it's time to just leave? Because it's costing too much? Because you were fooled by some bull**** evidence suggesting the presence of WMDs? Because to you Iraqi lives are not worth as much as US lives?

You gave them hope and promised them a better life. Instead you brought them death and chaos. On top of that you want to just leave them to their own devices. Just like last time, or the time before. No way. You stay until the Iraqi people can lead a decent life or you'll die trying.

The least you can do now is pay for your mistakes, not run away from them.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
yes ppl obsesssed with the constitution, freedom, proper checks and balances and a solid monetary system (gold standard) not run by international bankers are morons huh?
/ignore complacentnation


Why is the gold standard considered a good idea now? Although the gold standard itself does have merits, a RETURN to it would be more trouble than it was worth.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
NetRunner.. you say it's just Bush and the neocons that want us to stay there.. this is only partially true.. .the neoliberals are supporting the same agenda. Watch as bush sets us up for war with Iran which will be urged by Israel and the new Dems in office will say that we have no choice but to perpetuate the war as before... Now with unconstitutional executive orders available at their disposal should they need them.


Who are these neoliberals you speak of? What's neoliberalism? Wikipedia covers the topic, and cites Reagan as a prime example of a neoliberal. Based on their definition, neither Clinton or Obama, or really any Democrat is a neoliberal. Ironically, the economic policies of Neoconservatives are neoliberal.

If you want to say that the Democrats will continue to push the war in Iraq as vital, and move on to war in Iran, you're more cynical than I am.

I'm less concerned with getting 100% of our troops out of Iraq than I am with us pursuing a strategy that isn't just a military occupation whose purpose is simply to quell all dissent with our puppet government there (and the puppet government here, but I digress).

Right now, permanent occupation is the goal. With Democrats, I firmly expect the goal to be exit from the country with the least amount of damage.

That said, I'm used to being disappointed by politicians -- but I don't think people will stand for it if it turns out the Democrats are just as happy as Republicans to torture, shred the constitution, and wage war for fun & profit.

I still believe voting matters, and that changing which political party has power will make a difference. To quote my favorite candidate for President:

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Those words can only be better if you sing them.