Kucinich sells out by SergeantX

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Maybe he wrung some concessions out of Obama that we don't know about. Because all that pressure on you means that you have a lot of LEVERAGE. Let's hope Kucinich got something out of it... like a commitment to the public option in the Grayson bill, or a "trigger" in the fixit bill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:12 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

*sigh* Oh well, I guess they all can't be perfect.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:16 PM

SERGEANTX

More likey Obama and company have something on Kucinich. They were political opponents in the primary, and digging up dirt on your opponents is par for the course. I'm guessing that whatever they have was a big enough stick, when combined with whatever carrots they were offering, to comprise an "offer" Kucinich couldn't refuse.

I just don't see him falling in line for the usual empty promises.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:51 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Bribery, extortion or nude Rahmbo... whatever it takes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:18 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All this child in a old man's body knows is that he got to go up in a BIG, pretty plane! It was fun! And because of that, the most liberal kook in the entire Congress sidled up to the most liberal President.

Should we be surprised ?

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

Well, that's probably not ALL he knows. He probably knows how to correctly use "a old man's body" in a sentence (Hint: "An" is your friend!).

So it seems he quite likely knows quite a bit more than you do. Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
More likey Obama and company have something on Kucinich. They were political opponents in the primary, and digging up dirt on your opponents is par for the course. I'm guessing that whatever they have was a big enough stick, when combined with whatever carrots they were offering, to comprise an "offer" Kucinich couldn't refuse.

I just don't see him falling in line for the usual empty promises.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

If they were political opponents, as you've said, and digging up the dirt is par for the course, wouldn't it stand to reason that Kucinich has at least as much dirt on Obama as Obama has on him?

I mean, just the birthers thing should be a trump card if there's any "there" there, right?

Or are you implying that there's no dirt to get on Obama, because he's squeaky clean?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:06 AM

RIVERLOVE

Mini Biography from Whackipedia-
"Dennis Kucinich has had an amazing career. After being "discovered" by a talent agent while in a medical supply store buying triple-wedged shoe lifts, he was whisked off to Hollywood to appear in his first movie. That movie was The Wizard Of Oz, and he auditioned for and landed the plum role of lead Lollipop Guild kid. His acting career suffered after that, mainly to due to Billy Barty and other super-talented dwarfs scooping up the few roles available for little people. So he decided to go back home to Cleveland and try politics. With his 10th grade education (got GED later), boyish good looks, 3' 10 1/2" stature, and Alfalfa haircut, he was a very likeable candidate and he won his first election. After multiple re-elections to his House seat he decided to take a stab at running for President. He squared off against all the other high-profile and super-talented Democrat Presidential candidates such as Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Carol Mosely Brown, Gary Hart, Karl Marx, Soupy Sales, and Ringo. Falling short of the nomination by only 99.95%, Dennis decided to give up his Presidential aspirations, so he resigned himself to being the best Congressman he could be. He's voted against the War, voted against holding the Nuremburg trials, voted against the Marshall Plan, and voted against the Salk Polio vaccine. He has supported and sponsored legislation that included health warnings on Bazooka bubble-gum wrappers, making Stroh's Beer the official state drink of Ohio, and a National Day of Appreciation for Whitey from Leave It To Beaver. He has always been a stalwart of peace and non-interference."

After his flight on Air Force One with Obama a reporter asked him what he talked about with the President. He said most of the 15 minutes together was spent discussing who their favorite Little Rascal was. Obama kept insisting it was Stymie, and Kucinich held firm and true to his beliefs that it was Froggy. "Yeah, but what about your Healthcare vote?", the reported pressed. Kucinich looked up, warmly smiled, and said "Obama had me at hello."

Young Dennis is the middle Lollipop Guild Munchkin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:14 AM

Quote:
Falling short of the nomination by only 99.95%...

So you're saying he got more votes than such talented Republican superstars as Rudy "Ghouliani", Mitt "The Other White Bread" Romney, Mike "TeleChubby" Huckabee, "Mann" Coulter, Chuck Norris, Steven Baldwin, and Ron Paul.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:16 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If they were political opponents, as you've said, and digging up the dirt is par for the course, wouldn't it stand to reason that Kucinich has at least as much dirt on Obama as Obama has on him?

Very unlikely. Obama had huge money behind him. Kucinich did not. Obama is a savvy mainstream politician who revels in "the game". Kucinich is not. Obama seems to be willing to say and do anything to achieve his political goals. Kucinich, up until a few days ago, was not.

Quote:
I mean, just the birthers thing should be a trump card if there's any "there" there, right?

The birthers are a joke. Maybe my perceptions of Kucinich were wrong to begin with, but his calling card has been his integrity, not his ability to out-slime his opponents.

I know this little theory indulges my paranoid side. But a quick inventory shows my paranoid side correct far more often than my "benefit of the doubt" side. Go figure.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So it seems he quite likely knows quite a bit more than you do. Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

Play grammar nazi all day long, it only shows that -

How petty you are

That you have no substantive , valid point to offer.

But hey, you keep doing what it is you do !

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I can only hope he knows something we don't.

I think you'll find that its the other way around.

Dennis has always been something of a joke, his only redeeming quality is that he stuck to his guns. Now he does not have that going for him.

He admitted on the radio last night that he does not know what's in the bill, so at least we know he's on the same page as Obama.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:49 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Play grammar nazi all day long, it only shows that -

I note for the record that in World War 2, most Nazis rarely used proper English, despite the fact the all spoke it all the time (just watch Hogan's Heroes).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:50 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

He admitted on the radio last night that he does not know what's in the bill, so at least we know he's on the same page as Obama.

Frak.

Contract Law 101: It's impossible to sign a valid contract without reading and understanding it first.

So this "law" is void from its inception.

Kuci has always been a wimp. He never adopts a public rant until years after patriots originated it. He didn't admit the "Fed" Reserve Bank was private until 99 years after the fact.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:56 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So it seems he quite likely knows quite a bit more than you do. Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

Play grammar nazi all day long, it only shows that -

How petty you are

That you have no substantive , valid point to offer.

But hey, you keep doing what it is you do !

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

Yes Auraptor, he does seem to be even more petty and desperate than usual these days. Must have something to do with seeing his Obama-Reid-Pelosi dream of hope and change go right down the old porcelain facility.

Votes here! Votes for sale! Get your red-hot healthcare votes heeeeer!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So it seems he quite likely knows quite a bit more than you do. Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

Play grammar nazi all day long, it only shows that -

How petty you are

That you have no substantive , valid point to offer.

But hey, you keep doing what it is you do !

'Course, it would be a lot harder for me to do that if you ever actually LEARNED and started using language correctly.

See is you can figure out where you went so horribly wrong in your above response. Hint: Try reading each of your "bullet points" as a follow on to your first sentence fragment: "It only shows that how petty you are." "It only shows that that you have no substantive..."

Really, you DO make it amazingly easy. And for someone who loves to drone on about how great and smart and right he is, and revels in calling everyone else a bunch of retards, you REALLY have a hard time with the English language. I wonder whose intellectual growth is really "retarded" here. Wait - no I don't; I *know* it's yours.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So it seems he quite likely knows quite a bit more than you do. Of course, that's not really saying much, is it?

Play grammar nazi all day long, it only shows that -

How petty you are

That you have no substantive , valid point to offer.

But hey, you keep doing what it is you do !

Yes Auraptor, he does seem to be even more petty and desperate than usual these days. Must have something to do with seeing his Obama-Reid-Pelosi dream of hope and change go right down the old porcelain facility.

Votes here! Votes for sale! Get your red-hot healthcare votes heeeeer!

Speaking of petty and desperate, how's about your cute little bio of Kucinich? How petty and desperate was THAT? Must have something to do with seeing your right-wing dreams of blocking any progress go right down the crapper.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All this child in a old man's body knows is that he got to go up in a BIG, pretty plane! It was fun!

Just by way of clarification and illustration, THIS is what Rappy considers a "substantive, valid point". This is the level of debate he's interested in pursuing. This is the intellectual level he seeks when he speaks of wanting to have rational, reasoned debates.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

Young Dennis is the middle Lollipop Guild Munchkin.

You're lying.

Or were you going for your patented overkill?

Or have you started your daily binge drinking extra early today?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cuda77:
*sigh* Oh well, I guess they all can't be perfect.

Hmm...

"NONE of them can be perfect."

There we go.

Politicians couldn't find a gorramn platform if they were standing on it. Tricky bunch. But their advisers and the people who lobby them are often worse, it's hard to tell if politicians are themselves manipulative bastards or if they're just easily manipulated brain dead cheerleaders. The later makes sense if you have money and want to push something to get passed, but a few too many of them come from the game and go right back to it when they leave to safely dismiss any of them. I assume they're all sharks, it's safer.

Quote:
I know this little theory indulges my paranoid side. But a quick inventory shows my paranoid side correct far more often than my "benefit of the doubt" side. Go figure.

Ditto. Everyone in politics has dirt, or else they wouldn't be allowed to be where they are. They must be easily disposable if they prove uncontrollable by the lobbyists or whatever agenda has their hooks in them.

I bet even Ron Paul has dirt. For now the right can just dismiss him as a kook because he's harmless. He doesn't have inside info on any big scams that he can expose. But if he did, you can bet something would come up (Prostitutes! Mistress! Harassing interns!) even if it was planted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think Dennis succumbed to being the odd man out. When everyone you know... who is theoretically on YOUR side... takes a stand, it's very hard to oppose them all when it really counts. It's a natural human reaction.

Obama has shown himself to be a Clintonite corporatist in blackface. That doesn't mean that the Repubs are any better... At least Obama is a responsible corporatist. Because WHO ran up the deficit, again??? Hmmm, let's see.. The right-wing god Reagan (who ran on a platform of lower taxes, increased military spending, and a balanced budget... in other words, sheer friggin' denial of reality), Bush I, and Bush II (who created a deficit AND an economic collapse of historic proportions as his major achievements).

We have run smack into the fact that corporations have controlled our government since Reagan. While the Repubs howl and gnash their teeth and cry about how "irresponsible" this bill is, the fact they were strangely silent on the deficit BEFORE proves they wouldn't be any better if they were re-elected because they weren't any better BEFORE. And while Dems cry about the common man and the working people of the USA, the fact that they simply WILL NOT challenge the status quo prove how yoked they are to corporations. BOTH parties... Dems and Repubs... are tied by money. They remind me of two pit bulls chained to the same post... while they may snap and snarl over which side of the post is theirs, they can never get too far away.

This is not to say "third party" is the answer. Because not ALL Dems are bad... and not ALL Repubs are bad. Kucinich is OK. Feingold is OK. Kaptur is good. Ron Paul... as much as I disgree with him... is able to take a principled stand on most occasions.

So we have to take it back... starting with the primaries, and get the wrong people OUT and the right people IN.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:44 AM

My take on Kucinich is this:

He "sold out" to the left because he's actually on the left. He knows this bill is a stinker, but it's - in theory, anyway - better than NOTHING, which is exactly what the Republicans have offered.

Why would he vote with the Republicans? What have they offered him in exchange for his support? Sure, the Democrats probably HAVE offered something, but in the end, even if they offered nothing, he'd be better off voting with them and having them NOT oppose him for re-election, and have them NOT support an election challenger, when it's clear from every word the Republicans have said, that no matter what any Democrat does, they are going to be opposed in the fall in every race by every Republican they can muster. Voting with the Republicans was not only going to net Kucinich zero support from the Republican party in the upcoming elections - it was going to be used against him by them no matter WHAT he did.

So, faced with that dilemma, which way would YOU vote? You can vote for something, even though you don't particularly like the smell of it, and get SOME support come fall, or you can vote for nothing, and get rabid opposition FROM BOTH SIDES come the fall.

Not hard to see why he'd vote the way he did.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:56 AM

On limited acquaintance it's hard to know who's legit and who's not. And even if they ARE legit, this little incident here just goes to show anyone can be corrupted.

Nope, something's broke in how we elect people, which I blame on BOTH parties AND campaign finance issues. And something is broken within our system, too. Independent parties are a better answer than democrats or republicans, but ALL of them could fall to the exact same problem: we put THEM in power, in a position where they only answer to their peers. Congressional Ethics Committee? AHAHAHA! Indictment? Impeachment? Who runs all that at the highest level? Such bullshit.

The public is not in control. I refuse to contribute to this charade anymore by pretending that voting for someone new will make a difference, or that contributing $25 will make a difference when some groups contribute millions. Campaign Finance Reform? What, ask the crooks to make legislation that'll keep them from being elected? Yeah, that'll happen.

I think the only real way to destroy their power is to gather a bunch of people, become self-sufficient and sustainable, then IGNORE them. Starve them out.

Either that, or wait for the day they eventually they break their own game playing with their obscene profits and bribery and money theft and fraud.

But either way I'm tired of playing their game. I'm interested in getting out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, dropping out really IS playing their game. I lived through that: "Tune in, turn on, drop out." Communes. Back-to-the land movements. People in a drug-induced haze in Haight-Ashbury or Colorado. But none of that stopped the war. It was Students for a Democratic Society and others. Agitators. Organizers. Demostrators. That's what they REALLY fear.

The first part of a movement is COMMUNICATION. You need alternate lines ... non-commercial media, youtube, phone banks, mouth-to-mouth... whatever it takes. You have GOT to work with other people, get involved in organizations, pull them along with you. Dropping out? That's not a plan, that's surrender.

If everyone who was pissed off could agree on ONE goal, it would get done. The problem is, it's all scattered... antiwar, pro-environment, slow food, anti-bank and anti-Wallstreet ... everyone striking out in different directions.

The heart of the rot is the corporations, but the only entre we have is in Washington bc corporations are NOT democracies, they're tyrranies of top-down rule. So we have to focus on DC.

HOW can you claim to be tired? What have you DONE, besides bitch online? C'mon, let's figure out what the next step should be, and let's get there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:19 AM

Quote:

Either that, or wait for the day they eventually they break their own game playing with their obscene profits and bribery and money theft and fraud.

Bingo. Did you see where I said the other day that if your metaphorical plane's in a terminal nosedive, the only way to rationally react is to push the throttles to the firewall and get it over with quickly? We're in a position now where we might as well just break the system once and for all, completely, so we can quit arguing and whining about it and get on with making the next thing.

I'll support wild spending now the way neo-cons supported it in their era of "small government" power - sometimes you have to break the system so completely that it's beyond repair before you can convince people that the system is broken. So let's spend-spend-SPEND! Give everybody free healthcare with no new taxes, give the rich all the tax breaks they can spend, forget the corporate income taxes, screw regulations, and let's finish this once-proud nation off once and for all. Oh, and let's keep adding "sin taxes" on EVERYTHING: Sodas, burgers, candy bars, pot, condoms, anything you might possible enjoy, or that anyone else might enjoy, or that might imply that someone, somewhere, is having fun - let's tax the fuck out of it.

You wanna revolution? We can do that - but we're gonna have to get our hands dirty to do it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:23 AM

I've gone to protests and called politicans and written letters and given hundreds of dollars in donations last summer alone and I feel like I've been BURNED by a false front of an agenda machine intent on preserving the status quo. I believe your demonstrators and activists have been subverted by something sinister. If they are corrupt as well, then fuck them as much as the parties and the campaign/election process.

Do NOT accuse me of having done nothing. It's a lie, it's LAZY, and it's continuing a BETRAYAL from these same damn fronts. "Nothing changes because you aren't doing enough...!" No. Nothing changes because they are PART of the status quo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Then, if have have done all that, I apologize. But the progressive organizations have NOT been co-opted. Byte, there are organizations out there who carry the torch forward... moveon.org, CREDO Action come to mind. Maybe I'm wrong, and I would certainly appreciate some strategy discussion, but there are two schools of thought on what to do next:

Go local or statewide, bc corporate power in DC is too entrenched to be rooted out, or

Go balls-to-the-wall against DC, bc once THAT power crumbles everything else falls into place. What say you?

Mike, you know as well as I that breaking the system stands a better chance of ushering fascism into place than anything else. You have to know WHICH way it's going to break before you decide to break it, which means you have to weaken some fracture points first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And something is broken within our system, too."

I heard something on the radio the other day. It was a brilliant essay written by a woman I'd never heard of some time in the 1920's.

And what she wrote was this:

The framers of the constitution tried to avoid the problems of the day, but a new circumstance arose that they couldn't foresee. And that was that a new royalty of the ultra-rich had arisen that was every bit as powerful as the old, as a result of the industrial revolution.

She wrote that they had just as much power, took just as much out of us, and justified their existence as ordained, just like the royalty of old. And that we are now just as owned as were serfs under the old system of royalty.

Of course she was much more eloquent, bringing in history, examples, references from many places. She made a convincing point that what we need to do rise up and break the rule of the new royalty just like we did the old.

Anyway, that is what I believe is wrong with our system. We could change things and that would help - by having a parliamentary system which tends to keep parties to their campaign promises, and gives minor parties more power under the need for coalitions. But at its heart, the royalty of the rich is the problem we are facing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I choose to believe Kucinich was bought off by the promise that this bill IS only the first step and once we've made that first step, just like with Social Security and Medicare, we can move onto refining it.

That's what I choose to believe and what I believe myself. I don't argue the system isn't broken, nor that many (most?) politicians either aren't prostituted or become prostituted. I just choose until proven otherwise.

Maybe just to hang onto the last vestiges of sanity I have!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:31 AM

I have to go with the first option, I think, and particularly emphasize local versus state, because from where I stand state legislature can be pretty corrupt too. ._.

Even if you could make the federal government crumble, the corporations have enough invested off shore they could stand by themselves. It would basically be the facade falling, and we have ourselves an open corporatocracy.

...Which actually maybe that's an interesting option, because maybe the conflict might become more apparent to the general public. On the other hand, it could make it that much easier for any resistance to be crushed. A third possibility is that it might deny corporations the use of the government military, and so decrease their powers, being that money is meaningless without faith in the economic system. Without the military rule couldn't be imposed by force.

That's assuming the military would dissolve with the government and public opinion, it could be that without the national government the military and corporations will just turn on each other to determine who rises to power.

My thinking is still it's in everyone's best interest if none of them, corporations, military, or a reborn federal government were to regain power in this scenario. The question is, how.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:43 AM

Yee...es... Except I disagree with the parliamentary part, I think Europe has it's own problems and issues with corruption. Also there's the possibility that a parliamentary system could open the doors to something international, as we've seen with the EU. The EU is... not bad, but then Europe does have some shared history and similarity with culture. Occasionally minority cultures survive under the EU. Sometimes they are attacked.

I can only imagine the types of culture attacks that might take place if the EU became something global. It also begs the question whose running it, and for what end? I don't really trust any group of people with that kind of power, even if they are a diverse group of people. Power deals and brokering, possibly with lives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
That's assuming the military would dissolve with the government and public opinion, it could be that without the national government the military and corporations will just turn on each other to determine who rises to power.

Which is, in my estimation, the greater probability. How many times has that happened, as opposed to "positive" reform coming about via revolution and fall of government?

Admittedly it'd be more difficult here because the country would be so big to control via military might, but in my estimation, complete governmental collapse rarely results in something better, and far more often in someone with power rising to the top to create a worse form of governing.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To get to the Kucinich topic, I think it is a principled stand. Of course I could always be wrong BUT - as I recall in his last re-election the democratic party chose to support the other democrat in the primary. After that, and after a presidential run, what could he be threatened with that hasn't already been done ? What could he be personally bribed with ? He may rightly realize - It's now, or never. This, or nothing. And made his choice.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As to revolution and the military - I think there are too many recent examples in S and C America to expect anything other than people being 'disappeared' while everyone else pretends to not notice and carries on with life. Until of course the grannies stand in front of the WH every day with pictures of the disappeared for a decade or more.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:35 AM

Sig, I've eaten lunch, and my bloodsugar is high, and I should apologize. You are neither a liar nor lazy, and I was being melodramatic.

This IDEA, though, about "if you just work HARDER, you can make it happen," it's always bothered me, especially when it's applied to that whole idea about "If you pull yourself up by the bootstraps, you, too can have the American dream!"

It's like it exists in a theoretical void where there's no competition. In both the case of the working public in pursuing some ideal promised standard of living and the working public in pursuing some sort of useful reform that benefits them, not profits, it's Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill. The more you push (physical force or money), the more the hill (congress) and gravity (lobbyists) will work against you.

Maybe the better plan is to find a way around the hill so gravity doesn't even come into the picture. They aren't gods, they can't curse us to an eternity of futility if we outsmart them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Except I disagree with the parliamentary part, I think Europe has it's own problems and issues with corruption."

Except of course the people there have a far higher standard of living and far less fatal violence as a result. If one's freedom is going to be bought, let me suggest that it's better that the price tag be a government that represents your interests at least a little better than those of the ultra-wealthy.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The problem with local is that you can only solve local problems. Try as you might locally, you will still be enmeshed in bigger forces that will dictate your actions. I should know, because I work in a regional air regulation district which is impacted by what CHINA does. (You can't believe the number of times I've heard: We can't do this because it will drive business to China. Or Mexico. Or what-have you.)

Logically, the real answer is to make common cause with as big a group as you can collect. That's what the Wobblies were all about. And since the US government spends more on the military than everyone in the world combined... and has most often spent it fighting socialism and imposing capitalism (or neocolonialism, however you want to look at it) on the rest of the world, if the US government were to do an about-face it would shake the foundations of the current system to its very bedrock.

The question is not "whether" the US government has to change, but HOW: Do we best approach this from the bottom, installing progressive candidates at city, county and state level? If so, what levers can they pull (if any) to affect the Federal government? If they can't, what's the point?

Do we go balls-to-the-wall on DC?

Or do we ignore politics altogether and aim to make common cause with Chinese, Guatemalan, Vietnamese, etc. workers? (I don't see how.) Or European workers?

Do we just aim for workplace democracy, replacing corporations with cooperatives wherever possible? (Every time we let our standard of living et dragged down, we make it possible for someone else to let THEIR standard of living be dragged down.)

I know this for sure: We have to be TARGETED. No matter what OTHER cause we carry forward, whether it is fighting against the Texas Taliban or protecting wolves in Yellowstone... there has to be a small CORE set of actions that EVERY progressive chips in to. Now, IMHO it's getting the *ssholes out of Congress.

What say you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:09 AM

Well. I'm not really a progressive. But if you're looking for something I COULD support,

Quote:
Do we just aim for workplace democracy, replacing corporations with cooperatives wherever possible? (I know THIS for sure: every time we let our standard of living et dragged down, we make it possible for someone else to let THEIR standard of living be dragged down.)

This one sounds pretty good. I'm not sure about the feasibility of it, you'd basically have to convince the investors to kick out the entire board of executives and get middle management to come down to the level of everyone else. Middle management MIGHT be easy if the sum of the salaries of the executives taken from the profit pool exceeds what everyone else makes combined, so essentially everyone would be looking at a raise. But then there's the problem that some bosses, we shall call them hell bosses, they LIKE being sadistic to their workers, delegating pointless jobs and making them come in on weekends.

Still, overcome the issues, and that's a good step. I'm not sure that's the first step in the process, or even if the two of us are working towards the same goal, but hey, I think that's something everyone from every ideology could benefit from. And since I think it's okay for people to practice whatever ideology they want so long as they don't force it on me, I might even be happy to help with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:22 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

"OK OK I'll sign the damn thing! Just don't take Liz away..."

60 year old with 20-something MI6 handler and
propagandist for PETA's Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medi
cine

British honeypot arrived from England via British colonies of India and Africa, then 3 months later wed the US Congressman after knowing him for TWO WEEKS... That's what's called a SECURITY BREACH. Britain is the only nation to bomb Washington DC, burn down the White House and attempt to hang the entire US Govt.

Secretly arranged marriage in Brotherhood of the Bell:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:26 AM

Another thing you have to think of, once you've established the cooperatives, is to shrink each one down to community sized, maybe by decentralizing the corporation or splitting it up into discrete, self sufficient units. Otherwise you still might have a profit driven mentality that operates at the expense of consideration for people outside the cooperative, where a majority can overrule a regional minority to their detriment.

You also have to consider the communities themselves that the cooperatives take root, any successful socio-economic system has to meet the Maslow Hierarchy of needs. This is why maybe it's too soon to dismiss the idea of self-sufficient and sustainable communities. They may not be an offense tactic or do anything to FURTHER a cause, but they're a defensive tactic and a safe haven.

And lastly, you have to consider if maybe you want multiple cooperatives at a community level competing with each other. I can see how it might be useful for an individual, if their cooperative is upset with them, to have other options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

M'kay Byte, I guess we're just not on the same page about what's first priority. Sounds like you've given up on DC. It's terrible snake-pit, I know, and cleaning it up is like cleaning up the Augean stables, but I think you're too narrowly focused: All the good you do can be wiped out with the stroke of Presidential pen. And don't forget: It's 2010. Election year for Senators. Strike while the iron is hot.

But, to carry your discusion forward: I agree. As long as cooperatives are operating on a principle of profit (even if the profit is evenly distribued among members) there is the possibility of creating a monopolistic cooperative. Taking the thought-experiment forward: Let's say that you have a cooperative which is very efficient. The co-owners (all of them) decide to forgo their profits in order to expand. They gobble up other cooperatives, they invest in automation, economies (efficiencies) of scale come into play... in the end, you have one giant cooperative all over the world. They do a good job representing their owner/workers, but obviously not the unemployed. And if the company has gone whole-hog into automation, that might be a LOT of people!

So, how do these people find representation? I hate to tell you, but it still might come down to "government".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:44 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Loosy Kuci says he knows Obamascam is BS, but he has to take it up the ass for the Demorat Partyhardiers and the illegal alien in the White Whorehouse.

Quote:
KUCINICH: I lived in twenty-one different places by the time I was seventeen, including a couple cars. I understand the connection between poverty and poor health care…I struggled with Crohn’s disease for much of my adult life. [...] I have doubts about the bill. I do not think it a step towards anything I supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support, even as I continued efforts until the last minute to try to modify the bill.

However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth, and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. If my vote is to be counted, let it count now for passage of the bill — hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform.

Kucinich explained his “real desire” see “our President succeed.”

He added, “We have to look at what’s going on in this country. One of the things that’s bothered me is the attempt to delegitimize his presidency. That hurts the nation, when that happens. He was elected. Even though I’ve had some serious differences of opinion with the administration, this is a defining moment for whether or not we’ll have any opportunity to move off of square one on the issue of health care.”

Think Progress » Kucinich will vote for health care bill, says he’s bothered by ‘the attempt to delegitimize Obama’s presidency.’
www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/923702-kucinich-f
lip-flops-5.html

Obama don't give a shit about your healthcare, just the health of the Obamascam presidency.

Quote:
One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.

Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), said, “We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss.”

Added Serrano: “He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting — the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency.”

http://steppingrightup.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-reform-is-seco
ndary-to.html

Health-care 'trickery' called overthrow of Constitution, makes Watergate look like Romper Room'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128829

Mark Levin: We will sue over health-care trick, action filed 'the moment the House acts'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128773

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:54 AM

I think without public (and private, by far the bigger input) funding the government will just shrivel up and die. I'm not sure how else to fix the government besides throwing it out and starting over. It just seems like an irredeemable mess.

So one possible path is to maybe look at the corporations and create a change without destroying the economic wellbeing of the people who depend on those corporations. Then MAYBE you can have a government change without an economic collapse and without a lot of suffering, which is more humane.

I'd been struggling trying to figure out some alternatives, because I don't want to see people suffer anymore... This might be a good work around.

I think if you were to use pop-culture, there's enough "trendy" executives who grab onto any new bit of management theory that you might be able to make a difference. But you'd have to work the process out, make the transition easy and cost near nothing, so that corporations consider it a successful practice and so the practice will spread.

I have no doubts about the efficiency of such a system, you see it in the computer programing world with open source code.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hoo-kay, PN, I'll take this one on. As I stated in my post about the timeline of reform: "Republican opponents are now claiming it would be unprecedented and unconstitutional for the Congressmen to use the “Deem and Pass” rule to pass the bill currently in the House. This was put forward by Mike Pence, who was then asked: “Democrats say you voted for [these] rules yourself on three occasions”, to which he replied: “Yeah, sure.” ??? They are trying to make the case that this “self-executing rule” is unconstitutional, tho' they've used it OVER 200 TIMES themselves in the past 15 years."

It's true; you can't demonize the Dems for doing exactly what the Repubs did many, many times--if it's unconstitutional for one, it is for the other, and if so, means we'd have to challenge and kill EVERYTHING done by everyone with "deem and pass". Challenging it on constitutional grounds is a dead horse.

Quote:
When congressional Republicans predict ominously that Democratic deployment of a self-executing rule (or "deem-and-pass") will encourage them to engage in similar behavior someday, they forget to mention how many times they’ve already done it.

For the sake of anyone troubled by the ranting over this trivial matter, the historical record is indisputable. During the years when the Republicans controlled the House, they set records for the use of such "rarely used" maneuvers. Although their bogus sanctimony should no longer surprise anyone, the utter fraudulence of these latest outbursts has been held up to deserved ridicule by impeccably nonpartisan and even conservative sources. On the American Enterprise Institute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:
Quote:
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/17/ornstein/inde
x.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/conason

So knock off your scare tactics and misinformation; Deem and Pass has been proven constitutional in court already and has been used by Republicans repeatedly. It's their argument over reconciliation all over again; they have no shame (which is not to say the Dems do, either!)

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte:

Quote:
I think without public (and private, by far the bigger input) funding the government will just shrivel up and die. I'm not sure how else to fix the government besides throwing it out and starting over

--you mean like campaign reform (as a start)? Just think how much that alone might change things...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:01 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Pelosi will use the "Slaughter" technique, even though she and Slaughter fought against it in 2005, and they will pass the Senate Bill in the House without a real vote. When it comes time for that 51-vote-to-pass reconcillilation in the Senate is where the Republicans will throw up endless procedural and amendment hurdles to delay the thing. While that is going on, there will be at least a dozen lawsuits filed by States' AG's and some private groups to have the House "vote" declared unconstitutional. So this "big" week really means nothing. If it doesn't die this week, it will continue to rot and fester for many more months, and will continue to divide and upset Americans as they've done for a year now. He's some "uniter" that Obama is!

The Democrats are pissing into the wind on this. They are totally underestimating the anger and opposition America has on this, and the fact that they seem to simply not care. They seem to be saying "we know better than you". "Americans are just too dumb or too Foxed-News contaminated to understand what's good for them."

This Govt power grab of 1/6 of our economy will not be accpeted by the American people lightly. Seniors are going ballistic because of the 1/2 trillion cut in Medicare, and doctors are threatening not to take addl cases. Young people are not going to be overjoyed when their Govt healthcare bill comes in the mail, or is subtracted from their meager net paycheck. We will have rationing of healthcare like no one could have imagined. That's what doctors are saying, real doctors, not Obama stage actors dressed as doctors. And all this gigantic mess will all be on the Dems' back! Every single sole that has a stubbed toe gripe will be calling their Congressmen and bitching. I can't decide if I want it to pass or not. Either outcome is a disaster for Democrats, and I'm fine with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:05 AM

Oh, an edit.

Well, in places where cooperatives have been implemented, then end goal has always seemed to be to give everyone a chance at a job they like/want to do/volunteer for, and for those who CAN'T work, the cooperative also has a kind of charity. Big global cooperative, probably not good. Small local cooperative, maybe even multiple ones, that might work out for the greatest amount of freedom for people with the least amount of obligation.

Profit is a tricky thing. There's ways it can definitely be bad, in that in pursuit of growth EVERY year, corporations can resort to unscrupulous behaviour. It's also bad if pursuing profits causes the company to ignore damage caused by their practices. There's also the issue that I've never really understood why money even has value, it seems arbitrary, or like a figment.

Within reason, there might not be anything wrong with receiving reimbursement for a product or service, but I have to think about it.

I do think that not-for-profit right now might be too quick a paradigm shift, though. People's minds have to have a chance to adjust to concepts like that. I say start with disassembling the arbitrary hierarchy of the work place, then maybe steps can be taken that direction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:13 AM