|
|
libthink
|
libthink
Member since : Jul-07-2008 (Verified)
|
| Votes Cast |
189 |
| Comments Posted |
33 |
| Topics/Ideas Posted |
13 |
| Topics/Ideas Tracking |
0 |
| | |
|
Ideas/Topics Posted
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/13/2008 12:00 AM PDT The question of impeachment is the most popular question listed so far, repeated in endless variations. At this writing it is the question with the most votes.
However, most Democratic politicians dismiss this question in various ways. Before you do that, I'd like you to read http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Framed:_Impeaching_President_Bush_and_Vice_President_Cheney, which lists most of the objections to impeachment and why they are invalid. Please don't tell us an answer that has already been repudiated.
For example, any number of people have said that "It won't happen!" Or, variations thereof. It's nice that these people have an opinion, but an opinion doesn't qualify as fact. In fact, it WILL happen. There, I've said it so it must be true!
Right.
A lot of people think it's too late. It's too near the election and too close to the time for Bush to step down. Take a look at the frame and see if you don't agree that it will never be too late to impeach Bush/Cheney. I don't care if they are cold in their graves, it will not be too late. Because this is about future Presidents and administrations every bit as much as it's about the current one. We cannot afford for them to be unaccountable to the people.
The question behind this is simple: We want you to change your mind. Is there any possibility of that happening or are we wasting our time?
Because, if we are wasting our time, then you are really of no further use to us and we should go on. If your mind is closed and you won't consider what we want, then we need to replace you in November and find someone who will do what we want. Nothing personal, it's just that we can't let you stand in our way of holding admitted, arrogant criminals responsible for their crimes.
Are you willing to reopen this question and put impeachment back on the table, so that we can get to the bottom of what these people have done and hold them accountable for their actions?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/10/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
Shipping goods to the U.S. from foreign ports is a very significant source of carbon dioxide as ships generally use diesel for power. It dumps millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. Would you consider introducing a bill in the House to put a carbon tax on all such transport into the United States to reduce this problem and encourage domestic production of goods, which do not need to be shipped thousands of miles to market?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/09/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
In recent years we've seen many government services outsourced in whole or in part. (We call this "piratizing" them, because it amounts to stealing from the government coffers.) The Bandits claim that this makes services cheaper. Of course, the "savings" are illusory and the companies providing these services then add on a profit, making the result as expensive or more so than the same services done by a government agency.
So far, much of this increased expense has been hidden because the private companies don't provide the same quality of service. Will you make sure that any government service that is performed by a private entity conform to the following rules:
(1) It should be subject to the same audit and sunshine statutes as the government agency that employs it or that it replaces. In particular, all business transactions it has should be open to government auditors.
(2) It should provide the same opportunities for unionization as the agency that employs it or that it replaces. If that agency is unionized, then the subcontractor should automatically be unionized.
(3) It should provide the same healthcare and pension rights to employees that the federal government does.
(4) Profits should be limited to a maximum of 10% over operating costs, a fair profit for a guaranteed business opportunity.
(5) All whistleblower laws that apply to the federal government should automatically apply to service companies.
(6) All subcontractors and their subcontractors, recursively, should employ only people entitled to work in the U.S.
Are you willing to personally put forth legislation that sets these standards for future contracts and phase out any existing contract that doesn't conform to them over the next five years? (BTW, there should be no exception for defense contractors.)
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT John McCain famously said that he had a lot to learn about the economy. Apparently, he's a Rhodes Scholar compared to Congress when it comes to the topic. Congress throughout the Bush Administration has channeled increasing amounts of money to the least productive segment of society: the super-rich.
The Republicans keep harping on cutting taxes, but the truth is that if you have trouble paying your taxes it's no longer because taxes are too high--it's because your income is too low.
At what point will Democrats in Congress hire one or more experts on the economy and put their financial house in order? Just as a thought, why don't you require that all future spending for military operations be paid for out of current funds, rather than leaving this to someone's children to take care of?
Taxes ought to be apportioned so that the pain is spread evenly. That would mean that each person would be giving up some share of their discretionary income in proportion to how much they earned and how much they had. Since the bulk of the American people have no discretionary income left, we are wondering why those who do are left off the tax hook.
Which brings up the minimum wage. Why is there a discrepancy between the minimum wage in most of the country and the living wage (the wage that would cover all necessary spending including funds for retirement and healthcare), with the living wage coming out on the losing end? Based on the size of the minimum wage and the way taxes are apportioned we suspect that most people in the country aren't represented in Congress.
Are you personally willing to offer a bill that would redress this situation? If not, why not and which one of your fellow representatives should we turn to?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
The healthcare system of the country has become uncompetitive in the world market. As you must know, we spend about 1.5% of GDP on healthcare services, but still have tens of millions without health insurance, leaving them to fend for themselves. Hundreds of thousands of families have gone into bankruptcy due to health problems. In most advanced countries, healthcare costs less than 1% of GDP and everyone is effectively covered. Healthcare costs are often shifted to companies, leaving their products at a competitive disadvantage on the world market.
The only real solution to this is a one-payer system, similar to the British system. This kind of system has been proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others in Congress, yet it never seems to get to a vote. Will you use the power of your office as Speaker to make sure that this is thoroughly discussed in Congress and at least one single-payer proposal makes it to a vote?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
The Constitution has taken a beating under the Bush Administration, but we get the impression that Democratic politicians are cowards on these issues. Whenever some problem or perceived problem comes up, the default answer seems to be to take away constitutional rights.
This is lazy thinking. Who do you know that has taken any serious look at how to preserve our rights to privacy and freedom from government invasion of our lives while still seeing to legitimate law enforcement and national security interests? The answer always seems to be how much we can cut corners on our rights or how much we can compromise away.
It's time someone took a look at the problem from the viewpoint of modern methods and technologies to determine how to take care of those security needs while enhancing and maintaining our rights to privacy and personal integrity.
Will you personally make sure that Congress starts the process of looking for ways to enhance our rights as individual citizens? This should be a task force or a committee assignment to go look at the architecture of the security apparatus and recommend ways to make it conform more closely with the spirit and intent of the First, Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Ninth Amendment, and generally the philosophy of Western Civilization on the rights of individuals and minorities?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
You aren't fooling anyone by telling us you don't have the votes. Most of us have some notion of how Congress passes a bill, and we fully well know that as Speaker you have many means at your disposal to shape those bills or stop them completely. Every bill that's come to the floor has at least your tacit approval. Therefore, we hold you fully responsible for all of those bills, including money spent to fund the war (after the American people all but demanded that you put an end to it).
We aren't joking when we tell you that we want you to stop passing bills that favor the Republicans, the Bush Administration, large corporations and sometimes foreign governments over the interests of the United States.
Will you promise that in the waning days of the Bush Administration that you will use all your powers of office to stop any bill that favors large money interests, the White House, or our Republican friends over the American people?
And, will you specifically refrain from bringing up any more bills, like S. 2248 (the FISA amendment bill) that are intended to be divisive among Democrats until after a new (Obama) administration takes office in January next year?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich released "The Population Bomb" about the dangers of overpopulation. Since that time population has doubled while the federal government has all but ignored the problem. Studies indicate that the sustainable population of the U.S. is about 200 million persons and the sustainable population of the earth is about 2 billion. Overpopulation makes environmental problems, such as global warming, much worse, and energy policy all but unworkable. Yet, the U.S. does little either domestically or internationally to sponsor family planning.
Will you sponsor legislation to put meaningful resources into family planning at both the national and international levels? In particular, will you put into law revocation of the global gag rule? Will you sponsor legislation to end "abstinence-only" programs, which are recipes for causing unwanted pregnancies, from all federal programs?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Current_amount_of_overpopulation)
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT In the past few decades, conservatives have vilified the word "liberal" and bombarded candidates with attacks on their "liberal elite" policies. Yet, polls show that when Americans are asked for their opinions on most important issues, they identify with the liberal position most of the time, sometimes by sizable majorities. The Democratic Party platform consists of liberal positions. Virtually all of the important values to Democrats are liberal values of fairness, sustainability and consistency. Liberals value pure American ideals of liberty, equality and privacy. Yet, many Democratic politicians cower and run away from being called "liberal".
John Kennedy stated for all the world that he was a liberal, when he said:
"...if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'" (http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html)
Your opponents have certainly labeled you a liberal. Are you a liberal? And, if you are not a liberal, how do you fit into the Democratic Party?
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
Without regard to the extra money spend on war operations authorized in war supplementals, the U.S. military budget is approximately that of the next fourteen (14) largest military budgets in the world. Would you support a 5X limit, which would limit military spending (other than war appropriations) to the combined estimated next five largest budgets? If we are fighting the next five largest countries in the world, then probably we are on the wrong side.
In addition, would you support mothballing one half of the defense R&D, currently estimate at $70 billion per year, and move those funds to war operations in order to reduce borrowing for the war? It seems like we could cut out programs, such as nukes in space, until the war ends. While R&D is important for the economy as well as the military, in times when money is short it makes sense to spend it prudently.
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
As a result of foreign borrowing for the War in Iraq and poor economic policies that have undermined the fundamentals of the economy, the dollar has dropped about 50% against other currencies in the past couple of years. The true inflation rate is the official domestic inflation rate plus the drop in the dollar.
Will you personally offer legislation that implements a war tax to cover any additional war supplementals so that they are revenue neutral? Such a war tax should tax those with incomes over $1 million per year and those with property in excess of $10 million net worth. By taxing the people who most gain from the war, you can shorten it. Ending the excessive war borrowing would strengthen the dollar, and a strong economy is our best defense in a world of global trade.
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker,
Global trade deals have ruined the fundamentals of the nation's economy by encouraging people to borrow so that they can buy cheap goods from foreign countries. As a result, the U.S. has lost about one quarter of the manufacturing capacity it had at its peak and many people now earn minimum wage at wealth-distributing jobs. To bring wealth-creating jobs back to the U.S. we need a level playing field. Will you personally sponsor legislation in the House to force all companies selling goods here to show that they are:
(1) Paying workers our domestic minimum wage for creating those goods?
(2) Producing those goods under the same environmental standards are we have in the U.S.?
(3) Have and enforce the same workplace standards we have, especially workplace health and safety standards?
These requirements will need to be implemented over a period of time that allows industry to respond. So, getting this done right away should be a top priority.
|
|
|
Posted by libthink 07/08/2008 12:00 AM PDT Madam Speaker, We were told when Congress failed to put limits on Iraq spending that Democrats had made a deal with the White House over this, and we were told that Steny Hoyer had come up with a deal with the White House (and Republicans) over FISA (which turned out to be a deal mainly to put political pressure on the courts to bail out the telecoms). When will you start making your deals with the American people and let the Bush White House go fish?
|
Comments Posted
|
libthink
07/18/2008
|
World population growth is a national security issue and impacts our ability to control global warming. It is well within the function of the federal government. It is a problem that cannot be solved without the active involvement of national governments, and it is life-threatening.
In addition, the federal government is already affecting population growth through its policies. Thus far, it is making the problem worse instead of better. Simply not making the problem worse through bad public policy would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
libthink
07/18/2008
|
Anyone who objects to the British or Canadian system needs to see Michael Moore's movie., Sicko, which debunks the common myths about waiting lines. I'd love to have something like the French system, but I'd be tickled pink to get one even as good as the British. We need socialized medicine like Medicare that covers everyone and cuts out the profit motive. The last thing I'd want when I'm battling an incurable disease is someone making money off my suffering.
|
|
libthink
07/16/2008
|
Commenters don't seem to appreciate that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the House and have a sufficient number in the Senate to keep any Republican or White House bill from passing. The fact that we have any Republican legislation passing implies that the Democrats in Congress want that legislation to pass. There are many bills that would benefit the American people that have sufficient numbers of supporters to pass. So, why are we seeing bills pass that sell out the American people's rights and favor multinational companies over our own people while we see none of the helpful bills make it through?
|
|
libthink
07/16/2008
|
Just in case you happened to think that this is a viable option, let me remind you that oil is a world-wide commodity and any additional production here cannot affect the price unless it is in the billions of barrels a day category. Re-opening a few wells won't do the trick.
As to opening ANWAR or the drilling off shore, that would simply suggest you are throwing up your hands because you have no long-term strategy. At our current rates of production, we will be out of domestic oil in about ten years. Drilling in these areas might push that timeframe back by maybe a dozen years at the most. In either case, we will be out of domestic oil in our lifetimes (and I'm not particularly young). We can't afford to burn that oil and dump the resulting carbon into the atmosphere and oceans anyway, unless we want to destroy life on earth. So, let's just move to a sensible plan. Let's take the subsidies we give to the oil industry, and let's move them to the alternative fuels industry.
And, so here's my question: Why did the government let the tax credits for solar expire?
|
|
libthink
07/16/2008
|
It's a good question, but the assumption is backward. Clinton was able to balance the budget and start paying down the debt because of the Double Bubble (the build out of the Internet and the coming of age of the PC). Unless we have a similar miracle (nanotech and biotech are the two big candidates), we will have to fix the economy the old fashioned way.
That means, of course, earning the money to pay off the debt by such things as:
Fixing global trade (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1956-885),
Coming up with a competitive healthcare system (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1968-885),
Limiting the military-industrial complex (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1958-885), and
Dealing with the declining dollar (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1957-885).
Democrats have a responsibility to fix these problems. $30,000 is more than a year of steady work at minimum wage. Would you sell your children into slavery for a year?
|
|
libthink
07/13/2008
|
Second. This has to be about single-payer healthcare. Our healthcare system is no longer competitive on the world market. It sucks money out of companies, making it difficult for them to compete on the world market, while setting up a situation where many people lose their livelihoods over healthcare problems. It's heartbreaking to read what garyehowe wrote; and I have to believe this is only one of hundreds of thousands of such stories, based on the statistics. We need to know that at least one single-payer plan will come to a vote in the House. Will you make sure that happens?
|
|
libthink
07/13/2008
|
If you voted against this, would you re-read it and tell me what, exactly, you're voting against? Do you think that the politicians should duck this issue?
|
|
libthink
07/13/2008
|
While I agree with your sentiments, this is overly long and really redundant. Did you look at the many preceding questions on this already posted?
However, I voted for it on the basis of "The U.S. Constitution says that Congress SHALL Impeach, (not 'may if it is convenient'), the executive when such crimes against our Constitution and mankind have been committed."
Still, try looking before leaping.
|
|
libthink
07/11/2008
|
The only sure way to stop Bush from launching a war with Iran is to impeach him and Cheney right now. Not impeaching them is equivalent to encouraging them to go to war with Iran. This just goes back to the impeachment issue.
|
|
libthink
07/11/2008
|
Beyond pay (which is a critical issue), much could be done to improve eduction. The federal government must take the key role because education is a fundamental right and we can't let variations in the wealth and capabilities of states prevent students in some places from exercising that right. Also, public education is critical to everyone having the basic tools for understanding and working in the world. So, we can't let it be privatized, which splinters the experience of people, creating divisions and inequities in access. Any attempt to privatize education should be looked at with the same extreme skepticism with which we look at any kind of outsourcing. (See http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/2022-885, Eliminating the Profit Motive from Government.)
Modern technology provides huge opportunities for improving education. Just using cheap video technology to capture teaching in schools and classrooms with excellent education and making that video available in all schools (call it "Video On", passing video of great teaching on through the system) would help improve access. We no longer have to be limited by location.
We also need to make sure that science is a high priority. Learning to think scientifically is important to critical thought. It is as important as literacy or math. We need emphasis on citizenship. Children are left behind when they don't understand the political process, when they don't know how a bill passes Congress or why separation of powers is important or what their constitutional rights are. We need emphasis on history. Citizens need to understand history to put current political proposals in perspective and make the right decisions about them. We need to put priority into the arts. A society that neglects the arts impoverishes itself, the first step to downfall.
Many of the proposals by radical conservatives are designed to destroy public education. This is important strategy if you want to have a small group of rich people control society. Conversely, expanding and strengthening public education is important for democracy. Putting high priority on strengthening public education is a strategic imperative for us.
|
|
libthink
07/11/2008
|
Additional questions: Can we see some version of net neutrality passed? Can we be assured that no company will be allowed to favor its own content over that of competitors or prevent users from accessing any portion of the net on an equal basis? Will we see them required to deliver all content on an equal basis and give each user equal access (based on how much they pay)?
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
The problem is that Democrats are afraid to simply stand up and call themselves liberals or even "progressives". You never see this problem with Republicans, even after all the core tenants of the "conservative" political philosophy have been shown to be bankrupt by recent events.
The first thing they need to do to show that they've gotten over their victim status is to start calling themselves liberals. Once they realize that they ARE liberals, then they'll start to ACT like liberals, and then we will finally HAVE some liberal (and successful) policies.
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
While it's a good question, the truth is that it is Congress's responsibility to investigate this and hold the administration to account. That's why Congress should have impeached Bush and Cheney long ago. That would have given the Senate the responsibility for investigating this.
Of course, the result of this failure is to show that Congress is just as guilty as the Bush Administration for these crimes. They don't respect the Constitution or the rule of law.
That begs the question, why should we as citizens follow the law if our government won't?
Well, we should because we do believe in the rule of law, and we have integrity and honor. But we don't exactly have inspiring leaders, do we?
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
She shouldn't be supported. We should have supported her challenger in the Democratic primary, and we should probably find one of her challengers to support in November. Nancy Pelosi hasn't supported us. She's allowed all kinds of bills to come up that supported the White House. She refused to consider impeachment, which is morally wrong and poor political strategy. She's made deals with the Republicans and the White House while ignoring the desires of the majority of the Democrats in the country. As a result of her decisions, the war in Iraq has dragged on, nothing significant has been done on global warming, Congress has sold out the Constitution, and they may even be moving to go to war with Iran. She has no accomplishments that would suggest she should stay in the House, let alone be Speaker. So, let me make the case right here that we shouldn't support her, that we should, in fact, do everything in our power to see her defeated in November.
I know this is a brutal assessment, but the truth is that, from the progressive point of view, this Congress has been almost a total loss. I defy anyone to tell me a battle with the Republicans or the White House that we've won. Given the situation, the sooner we make changes, the better.
I don't like to make it personal, but unfortunately only humans hold office in Congress. When mistakes are made and the job goes undone, we have to hold our leaders responsible. As the top leader in the House, Speaker Pelosi is the one we have to hold responsible for the losses and extremely poor performance of Democrats there. If I had a vote, I'd replace the whole Congressional leadership with new people.
Really, I would have preferred that Democrats in the House had taken the hint when there were loud objections as they caved in on the first war supplemental. But no. They wouldn't hear what we had to say. We have to withdraw our support for these people, even if that means a few Republicans manage to get into Congress. Only then, it seems, will these people get the message and start working for the interests of Democrats in this country.
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
It's time for the House to study how we can increase civil liberties in this country. The House should form a group, either a subcomittee or a task force, with the power to look into how our security apparatus and federal law enforcement is being conducted and recommend changes to the system that will increase protection of constitutional rights. The process should respect the individual. This is not inconsistent with national security. Trading off rights for security isn't necessary, and I'm tired of hearing that people in our government are too lazy to find other alternatives. What are the changes to procedures and organization that are necessary to get it right? It's time to do some actual work on this, instead of throwing up your hands and raiding the Constitution.
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
Thanks for the comments. Yes, it's worse than I thought.
As for the exact model to follow, I'd love to have something like the French system. When was the last time a GP came out to your house to see you when you felt sick?
As for process vs. substance, well, no. She's a member of the House. It's totally within her portfolio to move a bill that would provide exactly this kind of healthcare system in this country. I want to know whether she will take responsibility to do that. She also has power over how bills make it through the system and a lot of personal power to twist arms to get what she wants. If she wants this kind of bill to come to the floor, it will. She's the right person to hold responsible for this.
|
|
libthink
07/10/2008
|
These companies should be nationalized. We should just use eminent domain and scoop them up. All of these people should be drafted, i.e., given an equivalent position in the regular army and their pay rationalized. (In other words, they should get whatever their new pay grade specifies.) This is just another example of outsourcing gone wild.
|
|
libthink
07/09/2008
|
It isn't appropriate, and to the degree that the telecoms violated the Constitution Congress doesn't have the power to grant them immunity in any case. When this gets to court it will have to be thrown out. So, even if Congress votes for this, it's nothing but throwing the White House a bone. It just gives them an unnecessary victory when we can ill afford to do that. It was truly stupid to allow this bill to come to the floor. I can only hope the Senate sends it off for a long sleep in committee.
|
|
libthink
07/09/2008
|
There are a constellation of policies that support rich people, and increasing population is in the short-term interest of people who have a lot of money. The faster workers reproduce, the more there are and the lower their wages are. It generates more consumers, increasing profits. Also, if you have a big population, you increase the supply of cannon fodder. That's why you see policies intended to increase population. This is why it's a sin to have an abortion, why there's a tax credit for children, abstinence-only education policies, and so on.
Conversely, overpopulation is bad for anyone who earns a living, and it just makes the world a more dangerous place. Unless you get your money from equity, you have a vested interest in seeing population reined in. Lower population growth means higher wages and a better standard of living for the majority of people. It puts a lot less burden on the environment. All environmental problems would be greatly lessened if we had taken significant steps in the Sixties to get growth down. The vast majority of people in the world would benefit from more funding for family planning, research on birth control, tax policies that favored less children, etc. Even just talking about the problem in sensible terms would have a positive effect.
|
|
libthink
07/09/2008
|
Drilling won't solve anything. It just puts more carbon in the air, which not only contributes to global warming but increases the acidity in the oceans. Oil is over.
Nuclear fission isn't a good long-term answer. The type of uranium we use won't last a couple of decades, and it is very expensive, even if we knew what to do with the waste.
We ought to put money into fusion because it has better long-term prospects, but solar, wind and thermal are the best options at this point. There ought to be a tax credit for passive solar, too, because it is very cost-effective.
And, BTW, all the oil we could get from ANWAR and the continental shelves just delays the inevitable by a year or two. We have to get off the oil habit. Energy independence is a national security issue. At current production rates, the U.S. will be totally out of domestic oil in about ten years, whether we drill in all the wildlife refuges or not. At that point, we can expect Saudi Arabia to dictate U.S. foreign policy. I think they've been practicing already.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
NASA better be putting up a sunshade around the earth by the end of the next Congress. If it isn't, then we won't need to worry much about anything else it's doing!
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
That's fairly obvious. They aren't any different from the Republicans. They're bought off.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
Since Congress is now in the habit of passing laws to benefit specific companies, maybe they could pass a law that defined solar thermal as a technology necessary for national security and intrinsically better for the environment than nuclear, coal- or oil-based power. Maybe they could bypass the environmental impact studies on this. I think I'd rather give up a few square miles of desert than the equivalent space on the continental shelves.
This, of course, would require common sense. Does anyone think Congress has any of that?
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
I don't think we've made the point clear to them because we haven't taken sufficient measures. We needed to vote for their challengers in the Democratic primaries and we need to take money away from the DCCC (and the DSCC). We have to be willing to hold them to account before they will consider going outside their comfort zones to see after our interests.
As time goes on, people will find they have increased power though the blogs and online contributions to campaigns. Of course, people like Pelosi are still behind the curve on what this all means, so they will probably suffer the consequences as this picks up speed. Maybe this visit will help them get clear on what it really means to have the netroots up in arms about their actions.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
We need someone to explain to Hoyer what the interests of the Democratic Party and the American people are before we send him off to parlay with the Republicans. He doesn't seem to be very clear on this. I get the impression that he's confused our interests with those of the large corporations and a few, rich, neocons.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
Yes, we should be alarmed. Given the administration's track record on (lack of) truthfulness and (lack of) willingness to know and act on the true interests of nation, we can be certain that they are off doing covert activities in Iran, risking a shooting war that could envelop our troops in Iraq.
Let's be clear about one thing: the American's people are in charge. Congress is their representative in the federal government. It is not morally defensible for any member of Congress to keep vital information from the American people on any issue that could lead this nation into war. No power of the President trumps this and no member of Congress has any duty to keep such information from the American people. It is never in the security interests of the United States to prevent the American people from knowing whether their representatives are being used in illegal activities, whether it is a domestic or international law. If the administration is breaking the law, then it is mandatory that any member of Congress who learns of this make that information available to other members of Congress and the American people, so that the culprits can be brought to justice.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
This is another reason why the Democrats should have impeached Bush/Cheney as soon as they took office in 2007. We've wasted two years when we could have been working on global warming because we coddled the President and his lackeys. Every meaningful piece of legislation was held up because we let this guy off the hook. Never mind that we've essentially set a precedent for other administrations to ignore the law and loot the Treasury. Just keeping impeachment on the table might have given the Democrats enough power to push some changes through on critical issues like this.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
Yeah. Why are we obeying the law when the President doesn't? Is he above the law? Should we take a hint?
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
We the People should consider constituting our own tribunals to try Bush, Cheney and key members of their administration for their crimes, and maybe we should simply bypass Congress. Since Congress seems incapable of carrying out this on its own, it may be necessary to go around them to do it.
These people (I call them The Bandits) took over control of the executive for their own, personal interests and the interests of their business partners and friends. They robbed the country of literally trillions of dollars in lost assets and money wasted on a needless war (when they obviously knew it was needless), by outright fraud and embezzlement, by carelessness in the execution of government agencies, and by misusing or ignoring regulations of key segments of the economy. They caused loss of life, both for Americans and others, by launching an unneeded military attack on Iraq. They failed to stop a serious attack on the mainland of the United States that cost nearly four thousand lives directly and countless others as a consequence. The intentional misuse of government assets and powers is one of the most criminal actions taken since the close of the Second World War. But Congress has failed to hold anyone in the administration accountable. If this continues beyond the close of the current session of Congress, it may be time for Americans to constitute their own tribunals and hold those responsible to account.
This is the outcome that could come if Congress fails to hold these people accoutable.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
The question is, which part of the bill do you (Speaker Pelosi) support? Can you quote us the text and tell us why you think it's essential that this be passed in the middle of a presidential election? Why did you think it was worth bringing up a divisive issue like this and risking having people who care about the Constitution--left, right and center--decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate because he voted in favor of this (or give the Republicans a campaign issue if he didn't)? Why would you give the White House a win on this issue? Why were the positive aspects of the bill as you see them more important than the detrimental aspects of putting political pressure on the courts (something we abhorred in the Terry Schiavo case) in the telecom immunity aspects? Also, why would you side with people who committed criminal and unconstitutional acts against the American people? And, then, why would you interfere with having the crimes of the Bush Administration put on the public record, as they surely would be in these court cases? And, BTW, to the degree that his weakens congressional and court oversight of the process, this bill could damage the security of the United States. Did you realize this when you allowed this bill to come to the floor?
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
Maybe the question is whether she should be treated as a Republican. Probably everyone who's dissatisfied with her answer should contribute to one of her challengers in the November election. Here's the list:
* Republican: Dana Walsh
* Independent: Cindy Sheehan
* Libertarian: Philip Z. Berg
* Socialist Workers: Lea Sherman (write-in)
Democrats have been way too comfortable. They don't think we have anywhere to go but to vote for them. If they make major mistakes, we have to hold them accountable. The first line of defense is the Democratic primary elections. However, those are over and the only recourse at this point is to hold them responsible at the general election.
Obviously, there are many issues where we want our elected representatives to use their judgment, even if we disagree. However, on questions like this, where we are talking about the successful functioning of the government, we should not permit our officials to escape responsibility at their next election.
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
And, how about replacing him in the "leadership" with someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?
|
|
libthink
07/08/2008
|
BTW, that should be "Healthcare costs" in this country "are often shifted to companies, leaving their products at a competitive disadvantage on the world market."
|
Activity Stream
|
Vote Up
Vote Down
Close