Read The Fine Print

[Craig234]

I just don't see that ever happening. We Americans are just too damned complacent. As long as American Idol, Survivor, and the rest of our television programs are still on, no one will care too much...Sure, we'll bitch and complain, but when it comes to actually DOING something...not gonna happen.

Don't count on anything being done via the ballot box either...the average American can barely remember what he/she had for breakfast, let alone how badly the previous party in power fucked things up...all they know is what the talking heads and current commercials tells them on a daily basis...and they only remember the bits they want to remember...

What might be somewhat more likely to lead to some degree of 'revolution' is when things deteriorate to the point the poor feel they won't lose much by risking their life.

They already do it a lot with the sweetener of 'serving their country' when they join the military as the 'best choice they have', a little more and it might result in some violence.

It would probably coalesce with someone providing the political guidance for them to be angry and why violence was an answer.

It's a pretty tough crowd to politicize, though. When they did try to do something, it was burning down their own neighborhoods in the late 60's riots.

But domestic 'revolution' has tended to be individuals followed by rare tiny groups.

The 'benefits' aren't there for the masses, Sharon Engle's second amendment solutions notwithstanding. And people are easily herded into someone's agenda (a la Tea Party).

 

[FuzzyBee]

Instead, the childish right just makes a word and spread the myth it was an injustice they need revenge for. Like they had to impeach Clinton to 'get even for the injustice to Nixon'.

Yes, many on the right admitted that was actually a motive in their impeachment of Bill Clinton on very specious allegations.

Evidence?

BTW, obviously specious doesn't mean what you think it does, unless you presume that lying under oath is something the President should be able to do without consequence.

 

[Craig234]

Evidence?

ABC wrote this:

April 21, 2005 — Republican Congressman Henry Hyde made some surprising comments Thursday on the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton.

He now says Republicans may have gone after Clinton to retaliate for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

In an exclusive interview Hyde said he might not try to impeach President Clinton if he had it to do all over again...

The veteran DuPage County congressman acknowledged that Republicans went after Clinton in part to enact revenge against the Democrats for impeaching President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier.

Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon's impeachment.

"I can't say it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility," said Hyde.

BTW, obviously specious doesn't mean what you think it does, unless you presume that lying under oath is something the President should be able to do without consequence.

I'm not going into an explanation again here of why Clinton did not come close to committing an impeachable offense. If you don't get it already, hearing it again won't help.

You can find plenty of information on the behaviors that fit impeachment if you become interested in being informed. Lying about an extra-marital affair isn't on the list.

But I'm sure you are for the impeachment of Bush that should have happened, right?

And you say that the only choices for lying about an affair are 'impeachment' or 'no consequences'. Wrong.

 

[FuzzyBee]

ABC wrote this:


(not in quote)

Hmm. Henry Hyde = "many on the right"? Perhaps that would be proper evidence if you'd said "Henry Hyde, who is of a party that I regularly note to be liars and crooks, said that many on the right wanted to impeach Clinton as revenge for the impeachment of Nixon".

I'm not going into an explanation again here of why Clinton did not come close to committing an impeachable offense. If you don't get it already, hearing it again won't help.

You can find plenty of information on the behaviors that fit impeachment if you become interested in being informed. Lying about an extra-marital affair isn't on the list.

But I'm sure you are for the impeachment of Bush that should have happened, right?

And you say that the only choices for lying about an affair are 'impeachment' or 'no consequences'. Wrong.

I love how you left out the oh-so-critical "under oath" part, as if it inconsequential. What sort of punishment do you think would have been fitting for a President caught lying under oath?

And yes, I'd be for the impeachment of Bush if he was caught lying under oath. That's the difference between you and I - I think about things without partisan blinders on.

 

[bamacre]

I'm not going into an explanation again here of why Clinton did not come close to committing an impeachable offense. If you don't get it already, hearing it again won't help.

See sig.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think our democracy is too far gone to save. There is no way to remove the influence of money from politics now that money owns everything. I think we can just wait now to collapse into revolution. You can't make bread out of toast.

 

[wayliff]

I just don't see that ever happening. We Americans are just too damned complacent. As long as American Idol, Survivor, and the rest of our television programs are still on, no one will care too much...Sure, we'll bitch and complain, but when it comes to actually DOING something...not gonna happen.

Don't count on anything being done via the ballot box either...the average American can barely remember what he/she had for breakfast, let alone how badly the previous party in power fucked things up...all they know is what the talking heads and current commercials tells them on a daily basis...and they only remember the bits they want to remember...

This...and this...and this again.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Hmm. Henry Hyde = "many on the right"? Perhaps that would be proper evidence if you'd said "Henry Hyde, who is of a party that I regularly note to be liars and crooks, said that many on the right wanted to impeach Clinton as revenge for the impeachment of Nixon".


I love how you left out the oh-so-critical "under oath" part, as if it inconsequential. What sort of punishment do you think would have been fitting for a President caught lying under oath?

And yes, I'd be for the impeachment of Bush if he was caught lying under oath. That's the difference between you and I - I think about things without partisan blinders on.

Where'd you go?

 

[Turin39789]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130836771

Has an interesting map of the current republican groups ties, but this is something that both sides do and no one should be in favor of.

This is not a new strategy. The cash flowed freely — and often in secret — two years ago. Except then it was mostly in support of Democrats. Back in 2008, NPR traced one network from its funders, including a union and liberal financier George Soros, to an anti-war coalition and an attack ad against Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

But what Democrats developed, Republicans have mastered.

A big reason why: money. Early this year, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money in partisan politics, and Republican advocacy groups have been flush with cash ever since. At the beginning of October, they had outspent Democratic groups by a 9-1 margin.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Where'd you go?

???

Perhaps I should just start calling you "Sir Robin".

 

[techs]

Just as shocking is the Supreme Courts decision that a judge can have his political campaign paid for by a person or corporation and then NOT recuse himself when a case comes up where that persorn or corporation is a plaintiff or defendent!

Scalia actually took an all expense paid trip from Cheney for a golf weekend with Cheney and flew with him on Air Force Two. While Cheney was a defendent in a case in front of the Supreme Court!!!

 

[FuzzyBee]

???

Perhaps I should just start calling you "Sir Robin".

Brave Craig ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When the truth reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Craig turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Craig

 

[waggy]

The USSC is merely the corporations tool to take the USA away from "We the People" and give it to "We the Corporations."

We've been sold out by the very government branch that was supposed to protect the Constitution.

i been saying it for years. the government sold us out for campaign donations.

 

[hal2kilo]

OP and all the leftists don't like the SC decision because it was a ruling in favor of free speech, that's why it was ruled unconstitutional. You can't tell me or anybody else what political ads one can or cannot run.

Typical freedom of speech as long as you agree with me mentality of democrats and tyrants.

Oh crap, you figured out our secret agenda!

Only in your world.

 

[Zebo]

Turn off your TV, turn off your radio, don't go to church, and you too may find God.

They can air all the expensive paid ads they want, but they can't force me to watch or listen to drivel. See no evil, hear no evil, is available in a cave near you. Tune in, turn off, and think for your self for a damn change.

As my Daddy always told me, the fine fine print is never there to protect your rights or my rights. What are those bastards up to? Be skeptical, very skeptical, they are up to no good no doubt.

But But But, those bastards can't convince us to screw ourselves unless we vote to be collectively screwed.

I like this.:thumbsup: