http://www.reddit.com/info/6morm/comments/
Yes, that's right. Dennis Kucinich is at it again to try for impeachment, and he's going after Bush instead of Cheney. This is the last news I've heard of it, but I'm sure if you turn your channels to C-SPAN there would be some more coverage of it.
At the least, he's trying to get it on the books that he at least tried to oppose the Bush administration's crimes. Although the guys laughable and sees UFOs, I thank him for this. At least somebody in our government has balls and a sense of justice.
Here! Here! All hail the great DK!!! Get that criminal bastard. He lied to us all! Who didn't know as soon as he was elected that we would be back in Iraq? I sure did. He just had to finish daddy's business. What he has done to the American people is far greater than what Nixon did. Criminal bastard! 
<---My impression of Bush.
Last edited by Silk2008 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:27 pm; edited 1 time in total yes, ok, so bush is on the way out anyway.
all that's been going on for years.
lying, cheating, robbing, favouring, invading, killing people by design and neglect, abroad and at home.
now don't get me wrong. i think bush is a criminal. but the usa is supposed to be a democracy, with a set-up so guys like him can't just go around and DO things. ok, he's the president. what about the elected representatives of the people? where were they all the time? house of reps? congress?
i'm not to familiar with legislative procedures in the usa but there always seem to be votes in both these houses....
all that happened and the usa public, voters reps in both houses, judiciary, law enforcement... everybody either said yeah great lets do it or just stood by and shrugged their shoulders!!!!
i keep having a quote going round my head, something like:
it's not the culprit that's the bigger criminal, it's the bystander, knowing there is wrong doing, and not intervening.
look at the usa from the outside, it's un- and mis-informed population, it's oppressive and marketing-led government, its limited and manipulative media-access to the people, it's own treatment of its own poor and disadvantaged.. and 300 million citicens shrugging their shoulders and say what can we do?
democracy?
where is the bucket
and at the same time pointing fingers at the rest of the world. that's really taking the piss
cheers
Stop generalizing 300 million people thanks. Believe it or not, there are actually some people in this country who care about our relations with the world and care about mankind as a whole.
It's a shame that almost nobody else is in support of Kucinich on this issue.
| Insanity wrote: |
| It's a shame that almost nobody else is in support of Kucinich on this issue. |
Well we only have like 5-6 months left. Probably one of the reasons. Along with everything in Washington being completely stupid and screwed up. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Stop generalizing 300 million people thanks. Believe it or not, there are actually some people in this country who care about our relations with the world and care about mankind as a whole. |
yes of course i believe you. there are good and bad people everywhere if one can put it that simply. but still, how much shouting has been going on over the last few years??
| Quote: |
| but the usa is supposed to be a democracy, with a set-up so guys like him can't just go around and DO things. ok, he's the president. what about the elected representatives of the people? where were they all the time? house of reps? congress? |
| Quote: |
| all that happened and the usa public, voters reps in both houses, judiciary, law enforcement... everybody either said yeah great lets do it or just stood by and shrugged their shoulders!!!! |
where was the public outcry? where were the media campaigns? where were the millions of letters and emails to your representatives?
and yes, all that can be done in a democracy - freedom of speech and expression is something that is held very dear in the usa - AS LONG AS IT'S NOT CONTROVEERSIAL.
cheers | icecool wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Stop generalizing 300 million people thanks. Believe it or not, there are actually some people in this country who care about our relations with the world and care about mankind as a whole. |
yes of course i believe you. there are good and bad people everywhere if one can put it that simply. but still, how much shouting has been going on over the last few years??
| Quote: | | but the usa is supposed to be a democracy, with a set-up so guys like him can't just go around and DO things. ok, he's the president. what about the elected representatives of the people? where were they all the time? house of reps? congress? |
| Quote: | | all that happened and the usa public, voters reps in both houses, judiciary, law enforcement... everybody either said yeah great lets do it or just stood by and shrugged their shoulders!!!! |
where was the public outcry? where were the media campaigns? where were the millions of letters and emails to your representatives?
and yes, all that can be done in a democracy - freedom of speech and expression is something that is held very dear in the usa - AS LONG AS IT'S NOT CONTROVEERSIAL.
cheers |
Pay more attention. There's a reason hundreds/thousands of people protest in Washington daily and weekly. There's a reason Bush has a 30% approval rating. There's a reason 70% of US citizens say we're on the wrong track. There's a reason every media station except FoxNews points out every wrongdoing of the Bush Administration/Republican Party. Do you want us to go burn down the White House? There's only so much we can do. We elect representatives that we think will look out for the citizens...we have no control over them after they're elected.
The US is not a democracy either. | liljp617 wrote: |
| The US is not a democracy either. |
Really? I could have sworn a democracy was when the people were free to vote for and select anyone they want to have control over the government and it's people.
What is it then?
God bless 
,
PampoonA democracy is a system where political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. Whether the US is a democracy is open to question - it claims to be one, but the influence of non-elected commercial lobbies and the restricted nature of political representation means that, at best, it is a partial democracy (the same applies to the UK and other Western governments). This form is normally called a 'representative' democracy but even that is questionable..
| Bikerman wrote: |
| A democracy is a system where political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. Whether the US is a democracy is open to question - it claims to be one, but the influence of non-elected commercial lobbies and the restricted nature of political representation means that, at best, it is a partial democracy (the same applies to the UK and other Western governments). This form is normally called a 'representative' democracy but even that is questionable.. |
You couldn't have defined a democracy better for me. Thanks Bikerman. Completely on the mark.
Regarding the question of impeachment, Dennis Kucinich first went for Cheney in 2007 for the same basic reason, wonder why he did not go for Bush then? Wonder why he waited so long?If you take a look at the 35 articles in his resolution, (Impeachment Articles) you'll see that it's all a lot of legally unsustainable, and much of it nonsensical, accusations. A first year law student could blow so many holes through it that it couldn't hold air, let alone water.
It amounted to a simple publicity stunt, political grand standing, nothing more.
Respectfully,
M | icecool wrote: |
now don't get me wrong. i think bush is a criminal. but the usa is supposed to be a democracy, with a set-up so guys like him can't just go around and DO things. ok, he's the president. what about the elected representatives of the people? where were they all the time? house of reps? congress?
|
I agree with you that George Bush is a criminal.
I disagree that America is a democracy. America was founded as a republic and remains so.
Many are trying to make us believe that she is a democracy. There is difference between the two.
I think a democractic America would be more harmful than a republic America. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
I agree with you that George Bush is a criminal.
I disagree that America is a democracy. America was founded as a republic and remains so.
Many are trying to make us believe that she is a democracy. There is difference between the two.
I think a democractic America would be more harmful than a republic America. |
I think you are a bit confused. A republic is a state which does not have a hereditary monarch - it is nothing to do with whether the system of government is democratic or not. You can have democratic republics, autocratic republics, republican dictatorships - and so on..
The US is a particular kind of republic known as a Presidential republic (ie the head of state is also the head of the government). How the government is elected decides whether the state is a democracy or not - it has nothing to do with whether the head of state is a king/queen or a president/prime minister.
If we want to be technical then I would say that the US is essentially a Polyarchy (and was set up and designed to be so). That means that power rests with a minority wealthy group of people and one of the central aims of government is to protect this minority group from the majority.... 
As William Robinson writes: | Quote: |
| ..when U.S. policymakers use the term democracy, they mean polyarchy - a system in which a small group rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites. Polyarchy then may be thought of as "low intensity democracy" or "consensual domination" |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmJv_wf91W8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:59 pm; edited 2 times in total | liljp617 wrote: |
| There's a reason Bush has a 30% approval rating. |
Not bad, compared to the 17.5% approval rating for Congress!
Given that, I think the low approval ratings for a Republican President and a Democratic congress speak more to a general dissatisfaction with the Federal government overall, rather than just a disgust with any given individual.
Respectfully,
M | Bikerman wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | I agree with you that George Bush is a criminal.
I disagree that America is a democracy. America was founded as a republic and remains so.
Many are trying to make us believe that she is a democracy. There is difference between the two.
I think a democractic America would be more harmful than a republic America. |
I think you are a bit confused. A republic is a state which does not have a hereditary monarch - it is nothing to do with whether the system of government is democratic or not. You can have democratic republics, autocratic republics, republican dictatorships - and so on..
The US is a particular kind of republic known as a Presidential republic (ie the head of state is also the head of the government). How the government is elected decides whether the state is a democracy or not - it has nothing to do with whether the head of state is a king/queen or a president/prime minister.
If we want to be technical then I would say that the US is essentially a Polyarchy (and was set up and designed to be so). That means that power rests with a minority wealthy group of people and one of the central aims of government is to protect this minority group from the majority....
As William Robinson writes: | Quote: | | ..when U.S. policymakers use the term democracy, they mean polyarchy - a system in which a small group rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites. Polyarchy then may be thought of as "low intensity democracy" or "consensual domination" |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmJv_wf91W8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy |
Quite the contrary I believe.
You said republic does not have a hereditary monarchy, well neither does a democracy.
However, there are still key differences between the two. They are not the same.
America was founded as a republic, and remains to this day, as a republic. America is not a democracy.
The key difference between a democracy and a republic, is not how the representatives are chosen (since both use elections), but rather how they govern the nation.
Democracy uses the notion of majority rule decided by the people. After all, the meaning of democracy is "power (kratos) to the people(demos)".
With a republic, you are governed by charters that would be the cornerstone to new laws. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
Quite the contrary I believe.
You said republic does not have a hereditary monarchy, well neither does a democracy. |
Believe what you like - you are wrong. There are many forms of democracy - including monarchic democracy and republican democracy. The DEFINITION of a republic is a state with no hereditary monarch. Go and look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
| wiki wrote: |
| In most modern republics the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, archon and many others. In republics that are also democracies the head of state is selected as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort is elected by the people, and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president. This type of democracy is also used in Ancient Rome. |
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
However, there are still key differences between the two. They are not the same.
America was founded as a republic, and remains to this day, as a republic. America is not a democracy. |
Of course they are not the same - I said so. That does not mean that they are exclusive, however - they are not. You can have republics which are democracies and republics which are not - the terms are not exclusive. The US is a Presidential Federal Republic. It is also a polyarchy, though it is often claimed that it is a democracy and some would argue that it is. I think they are wrong for a variety of reasons, but being a republic is not one of them. A polyarchy could be defined as a very limited form of democracy. Polyarchies also often disenfranchise a section of voters. The US, for example, disenfranchises about 4 million inhabitents of its territories in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| The key difference between a democracy and a republic, is not how the representatives are chosen (since both use elections), but rather how they govern the nation. |
It is perfectly possible to have autocratic republics where the head of state is not elected. Napoleonic France springs to mind. We also have many countries which call themselves republics which have dictators - Cuba springs to mind. Basically any country/state without a monarch is normally known as a republic. | Quote: |
Democracy uses the notion of majority rule decided by the people. After all, the meaning of democracy is "power (kratos) to the people(demos)".
With a republic, you are governed by charters that would be the cornerstone to new laws. |
What you are describing is one form of democracy known as Athenian democracy. Even then the definition is not strictly accurate. The notion of true majority rule has never really been implemented anywhere that I can think of. Athens, for example, had the notion of 'qualified voters' which did not include women, slaves etc. The closest example of real majority rule that springs to mind would be pre-Franco Spain. There are other forms of democracy which actually have been implemented, however - representative democracy being the most common.
I have already said that I don't believe that the US is a true democracy, but that has nothing to do with it being a republic and everything to do with the way that government is elected and controlled and the way real power is withheld from the majority.
Republics may be governed with reference to a civil charter/constitution or they may not. Iran, for example, is an Islamic republic which is governed largely by a theocracy...A few days ago news said that Dennis Kucinich was putting in his penny's worth of 35 Articles for impeachment, but how is that going to stop Bush and what is happening with the 35 Articles?
Right now it looks as though Bush is involved in crucial discussions with Iraq that will affect the commitment of US to Iraq peace initiatives, and possibly prolong US presence in Iraq long past his presidency.
I just typed "impeachment Bush" into Yahoo Search Engine .... wow! So many Websites dedicated to impeaching him. Yet nothing tangible happening.
Why is nothing happening to stop him? As when I looked at the news headlines on all of the search engines tonight nothing is mentioned about impeaching or stopping Bush. He seems to be carrying on regardless. Is it possible that he is quite confident of the outcome of the elections?
Like watching a Kafka thriller!
| pampoon wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | The US is not a democracy either. |
Really? I could have sworn a democracy was when the people were free to vote for and select anyone they want to have control over the government and it's people.
What is it then?
God bless ,
Pampoon |
We are considered a democracy, but our consent is engineered through clever spin and manipulation of the content we view in our media. Thus, we become involuntary puppets to the interests of others rather than surfacing our own opinions. | {name here} wrote: |
| pampoon wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | The US is not a democracy either. |
Really? I could have sworn a democracy was when the people were free to vote for and select anyone they want to have control over the government and it's people.
What is it then?
God bless ,
Pampoon |
We are considered a democracy, but our consent is engineered through clever spin and manipulation of the content we view in our media. Thus, we become involuntary puppets to the interests of others rather than surfacing our own opinions. |
At the centre of a democracy is supposed to be a free press. How free is the "free press" in the US? I have just watched a movie by Robert Redford called "Lions for Lambs", an excellent portrayal of a newspaper person who is being manipulated by a Senator for a "scoop" (which really amounted to propaganda for a new Republican initiative in war - Afghanistan). Robert Redford provided a special commentary as part of the DVD and in it he maintained that the calibre of the press of Watergate is not there any longer. I.e. during Watergate news reporters were willing to take huge risks to dig out the truth and to stand by it, passionately. The newspaper woman in the movie puts serious questions to her Newspaper Editor, who apparently does not want to hear them, as all he wants to do is print the story. Redford sees that the press is controlled by large corporations whose objectives may be either to maintain the status quo, i.e. keep the current Party in power, or to get the other Party in. He suggests that the intention of the Senator to "pitch" his message to the newspaper woman had been more to retain power of the Republican Party than to move into Afghanistan at the right time when the troops would have been better prepared.
The Senator had very sound arguments for having a presence in Afghanistan "as long as it takes". Think that serves to illustrate how poor the PR of the Republican Party is with too much manipulation and control through the media and too little open and truthful dialogue with the people. Redford also demonstrated through the movie apathy and cynicism of students at Universities preferring not to be bothered by issues about war as that is a whole load of political "crock". So perhaps signs are there that the whole democratic process has become systemized, so that the system has become less democratic by being open for manipulation without real involvement by the people. If the voting public were treated like real participants of Government, or insisted to be treated like real participants, maybe there could have been greater trust? Perhaps also lots of dialogue is needed, as perhaps quite a large portion of information is being withheld in the "interest of national security" that would have brought completely different insights to the American people, and the absence of open and transpartent information is casting shadows that can be interpreted mostly in the negative?If you are interested in this area then I would recommend a book to you;
Manufacturing Consent - by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media
I would reccomend Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion, both books by Edward Bernays, who was not only the person who coined the term "manufacturing consent", but also helped the famous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels learn his art and craft through both his books. If you can wrap your head around his ideas you'll know the exact tricks people have used for almost a century. I think you will find that 'manufacturing consent' was coined by Walter Lippman.
Anyway - I concur, Bernays is well worth a read. | Bikerman wrote: |
I think you will find that 'manufacturing consent' was coined by Walter Lippman.
Anyway - I concur, Bernays is well worth a read. |
Oops. My bad! He did have an essay named "The Engineering of Consent" and I guess I mixed the the phrase and the essay up.
Thanks Chris, I am interested. Will check Amazon. Although he is strange and considered radical by most, I think that Dennis Kucinich is admirable. I believe he knows that it is highly unlikely that his efforts will lead to an impeachment, however he feels that it is the right thing to do. So many politicians are quick to compromise their values for practicality and to remain popular, Kucinich on the other hand appears to be remarkably consistent.
And yes, I happen to agree with him on this case. It is unfortunate that the United States' democratic process has stagnated to this point. Many of his arguments are sound but because it goes against the grain most legislators are rejecting impeachment out of hand.
I've already had to state my opinion about Bush being impeached so many times that I won't describe it in detail, but the point of my argument is that the Constitution states that a president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Bush is arguably a crappy president, but I don't think that he has performed any high crimes and misdemeanors. Therefore, Kucinich's quest is pointless unless he wishes to go against the Constitution. Good luck with that.
| sondosia wrote: |
| I've already had to state my opinion about Bush being impeached so many times that I won't describe it in detail, but the point of my argument is that the Constitution states that a president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Bush is arguably a crappy president, but I don't think that he has performed any high crimes and misdemeanors. Therefore, Kucinich's quest is pointless unless he wishes to go against the Constitution. Good luck with that. |
Really? I can think of 4-5 off the top of my head in a few seconds. If Clinton can get impeached for lying about getting a blowjob surely Bush has a few things against him...correct?
