Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Great. Cindy will bring a protest to Conyers. Who's next, Waxman? Kucinich?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:36 AM
Original message
Great. Cindy will bring a protest to Conyers. Who's next, Waxman? Kucinich?
Edited on Thu Jul-12-07 01:40 AM by jpgray
For all the do-nothing, collaborating, centrist wallflowers of Democrats we have, Cindy protests CONYERS!? I can see how pushing the people who sympathize and may do something (Democrats) can be more effective than harassing the already horrible people (Republicans). I'd rather see people do both, but at least it makes sense. But why not protest the Democrats who -are- actually sitting on their asses and not holding Bush accountable at -all-, hamstringing those few precious Dems who -do- want to do something? The Jane Harmans, etc., are deserving of this treatment. It's their apathy and lack of guts that deflates our threats to the administration and any strategy Pelosi could have for impeachment. If Pelosi decided to impeach, you'd have those centrist Democrats falling over themselves to call it "rash," "petty," etc. So why protest people like Waxman or Conyers who at least are pushing forward in more aspects than almost any other congressperson you can name? It seems like craziness to me. Why protest those in our party who have done the least wrong? Why not protest the worst members? At least she can remind Conyers that his party is the party of slavery.

(purposed misinterpretation disclaimer: Yeah, she has every right to do it. No, I'm not calling for blacklisting or party loyalty oaths. I just disagree with the strategy of this.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Asked and answered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. the people she's targeting
opposed this war from day 1, and they're the ones trying to stop it.

They're being prevented from doing so, though, by Republicans and conservative Democrats. It would make more sense if Sheehan protested THEM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. I wish she and her group-& code pink would do Both. In targeting Conyers
and others like OBEY, they are targeting those in power (committee chairs for example)----

Conyers did great holding hearings about DSmemo's etc but then he put impeachment off the table ---request from Pelosi. Pelosi made a mistake doing this as it is tool to be used (to be available)----The decision to remove impeachment was not hers to make----it is tool for the American people to be used (hung over their heads if nothing else)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
77. No, if impeachment is what she's after, the person who can move that
is John Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Uh, does "K&R" ask or answer my question?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. It's all about visibility...
If they're on her side, she's no problem whatsoever. They'll just walk by her and say hello. The fact that she's THERE is news, and brings more publicity to the issue. It's not going to hurt Conyers, who already knows her.

Pelosi, on the other hand, took impeachment off the table. Cindy's not likely to be happy about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. Party loyalty oaths? No need. She isn't a Democrat.
She thinks Democrats are the party of slavery, we started all of the 20th Century Wars (never mind Hitler and Hirohito, I guess) and she has an extremely right wing approach to taxation.

She's been "troll rated" over at Kos. They're not kind about her, either. See here, read all the comments that follow her pronouncement. Interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. DUers need to separate the policies and actions from the cult of personality
A bad idea is a bad idea no matter who promotes it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. I have a theory.
It's just a personal opinion, but I can't shake it. I think she's got a bunch of hangers-on who are bleeding her dry. Heck, she just got a big payday with that land sale. A month and a half ago, she was leaving public life, conserving her scarce resources, going home to raise her remaining kids. Goodbye, America, she said, my son died for nothing. It was a pretty dramatic farewell--to the Peace Movement, to the Democratic Party, and to America. It's all in her Kos diary.

And now, six weeks--less really--later, she's out of retirement--ordering Pelosi about (we'll see how well that works out), declaring her candidacy as an independent, and determined to go pester John Conyers.

I do think her mind is disordered, that she's unwell. That she needs some significant HELP. And soon.

If you read her diary you see a large change over time, and it's not a good change, either. It's a bit grandiose, excessively dramatic, and just shy of delusional.

The people who are egging her on ought to be ashamed. It's like telling a guy with liver cancer to chug a gallon of Johnnie Walker or something...

I'm not surprised at her Kos "troll rating." I really think she's in need of some kind of major intervention and help, but I doubt her so-called "friends" (the hangers-on, the "Entourage") want to tell the Golden Goose to spend her Golden Eggs on mental health services, rather than them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. Where does the troll-rating/recs/unrecs show up at DKos?
I logged in at DKos but cannot find anything but a list of people who have recommended that CindySheehan diary. Do the "mods" at DKos put the troll rating tag on the diary?? thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
82. I wish I could tell you.
I can't though, because I'm not sure how it works. I don't even know if they have an "Unrecommend" feature (something I've always thought we could use here, really). If they do, maybe that's how the tag comes up.

I'm not one of the members, there, though I am thinking about signing up. I really wish the site was a bit easier on the eyes; it's a bit hard to follow, despite the attractive graphics. I will say, I do think the level of discourse over there is nothing short of excellent. The people who post there, many of them, anyway, know their politics, history and government, and the back and forth is sharp and envigorating.

In any event, I guess we won't be reading Cindy's posts over there any more. They've told her to stop 'campaigning' over there, as she's been violating their TOS--that post about FDR and Wilson starting the World Wars, the Democrats being the Party of Slavery, and that right-wing income tax position she posted were probably the icing on the "I'm Going To Run Against Pelosi as an Indy" cake. They are quite vigorous in enforcing that rule, apparently.

She's just put up this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/91014/1295

    I have been "warned"
    by CindySheehan
    Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:16:05 AM PDT
    I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress
    is not on the Democratic ticket.

    I have been deeply grateful for all of your support over the years.
    Your love and kindness helped me through lots of sleepless nights
    at Camp Casey '05.

    If Speaker Pelosi does her constitutionally mandated duty and I don't run,
    then I can come back and post.

    I know a lot of you are hostile towards my candidacy. Please
    understand that I am doing it for your children and grandchildren
    (and my surviving ones.)

    Love always,
    Cindy

    CindySheehan's diary :: ::
    Tags: GBCW, troll diary (all tags)


I hope she reads the rules here, too, if she's thinking about campaigning on this website.

The reactions to her latest post over there aren't, shall we say, universally heartwarming. The kindest phrase that comes to mind is that many think she's jumped the shark. Others have a much harsher view, calling her arrogant, condescending, and crazy. The person who "warned" her chimed in too, saying that she wasn't told that she couldn't post, just that she couldn't advocate her candidacy. There's also a REALLY good discussion in the comments section of "people who just don't appreciate the site's focus." We have that problem here, too. And it's one that really is a problem as elections loom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. I think the DKos preferred members can negative-rate &put the troll-rating tag
...On a particular post or diary. One needs to have an unspecified number of nicey-nicey posts at DKos to get on the the list of the preferred.

Me, I have 15000 posts at DU to show for my efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Ahh, so that's how they do it.
It's an interesting community--they really do run the gamut in terms of our big tent--from old to young, from liberal to moderate to centrist to conservative Democrats. And you've got some sharp characters over there, too. A few of them I know from some of my small-time campaign work.

It's just hard to read and follow, at times! One thing I like about this community, it's extremely user-friendly. Easy to read, easy to find stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #15
54. And you are wrong - once again
As a proud member of her "entourage", I can happily report that NO ONE tells Cindy what to do. She wouldn't take the advice anyway. She also didn't hit the big time when she sold that land. (That's a funny - thanks for the laugh!) And she is NOT disordered (this is not only insulting, as I have told you before, but downright ignorant). I also doubt she gives a shit what dailykos or DU keyboard commandos think of her. Popularity isn't one of her goals. Saving her country is more important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
78. If you are a member of her entourage, you must have one hell of a wireless card on your laptop.
All I can say is, I hope you're not one of the ones bleeding her dry of all her money. She got $87K from that land sale; that should last for a fair while, and when that runs out, I suppose they can get her a speaking gig with a hefty honoraria that she's receive criticism for taking.

You, for all you claim to "know" her, apparently don't read her public diary. A month and a half ago she said "Good-bye, America" and said she was going home to raise her family, leaving the Peace Movement, too. Resigning as the face of the antiwar movement. HER WORDS. Not yours--hers. She said America didn't deserve saving, in essence. That her child died for nothing. That all America cared about was American Idol. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525 It seems entirely UNAMBIGUOUS to me. What, are you now going to interpret for her? Say she didn't "mean" that? While you're at it, interpret for us her latest bastardizations and disordered rantings about US History, that has FDR starting WW2, why don't you?

You constantly claim to "know" what she thinks, and you speak with rather profound authority in that regard. You're way too quick to leap on the theories or opinions of others, insisting that they are "wrong" because you don't happen to like the opinion or theory. Are you a supporter of the income tax plank in her convoluted platform she issued for her proposed run against Pelosi? Tell me, who put THAT nutty idea into her head? The Militia Movement, maybe?

I'm just reading her own written words, and they don't jive with what you're claiming--at all. So, I have to quite seriously wonder--what's your agenda, here? What motivates you to spur on a woman who quite recently said, and I quote: I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I'd think her real friends would help her to do just that, not encourage her to make an ass of herself in clownish, grandstanding attempts to bully Pelosi or Conyers. But maybe she doesn't HAVE any real friends--maybe she just has Users, Hangers-On, and members of her Entourage. Like Elvis. That worked out real well for him, didn't it?

I think her hangers-on need to look real hard at what they're doing to that woman. I think it's cruel, myself, at a minimum--and it could be even worse.

YMMV, and surely does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. Give it a rest
How many threads on this subject have you started? Three trillion, Four? Five?

Pound your position into the ground why don't you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. This is my first thread of the day.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. now why don't I believe that
your hatred of Cindy's democratic dissent has already been firmly established in my mind and I skip 98% of all Cindy hater threads.

Oh well, click and hide is my friend.

Carry on with the hating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Do a simple search using his username.
Then it is irrelevant what you "believe" because then you can deal in fact and not hyperbole, misdirection, and mis-characterization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Well, that's an aggressive, unfair and false attack toward the OP.
You can check that fact you were provided with the search feature. You should do that rather than suggest that someone is prevaricating.

Click and hide should be your friend, with that attitude. Perhaps you'd be happier if you increased your thread skipping by two percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Because you are delusional?
Seriously. Look up the screen name. You should be able to tell if jpgray is lying.

Hint: You are wrong. I looked myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
43. she should not even be discussed at DU and just because
someone doesn't agree with you you put them on your ignore list.....:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. the day is early (central time about 2 am now)--good one. But I do not mind
you posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. Everybody knows John Conyers is just a DLC whore
:eyes:

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. .... !!!!`````~~~........~!
:rofl:

You know, don't you, that there will actually be people who don't go beyond your subject line and will repeat your assertion? Con BRIO, too!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. A real enabler, he is.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
46. haha Good one!
Let's face it, some people are so clueless they wouldn't know enemy from ally if their lives depended on it.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
48. And a representative of the party of slavery...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think she's looking for someone to help finish cutting her nose off...
... because her face just hasn't been spited enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

Civil Disobedience - Part 1 of 3

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least" 1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
<2> This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

<3> But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

<4> After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts — a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(6)
<5> The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away,"(8) but leave that office to his dust at least: —
"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."(9)
<6> He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
<7> How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.

<8> All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75.(10) If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.(11)
<9> Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer" — "This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other."(12) Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it.(13) This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

<10> In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does any one think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

"A drab of state, a cloth-o'-silver slut,
To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt."(14)
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.(15) There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.
<11> All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

<12> I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore,(16) or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow (17) — one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

<13> It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico; — see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

(continued in part two)
Notes
1. Possible reference to "The best government is that which governs least," motto of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review,1837-1859, or "the less government we have, the better" - R.W. Emerson, "Politics", 1844, sometimes mistakenly attributed to Jefferson - back
2. U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848), abolitionists considered it an effort to extend slavery into former Mexican territory - back
3. Made from the latex of tropical plants, "India" because it came from the West Indies, and "rubber" from its early use as an eraser - back
4. Anarchists, many of whom came from Massachusetts - back
5. Boys who carry gunpowder for soldiers - back
6. Charles Wolfe (1791-1823) The Burial of Sir John Morre at Corunna - back
7. Group empowered to uphold the law, a sheriff's posse - back
8. Shakespeare (1564-1616) English dramatist, from Hamlet - back
9. Shakespeare, from King John - back.
10. The American Revolution began in Concord & Lexington in 1775 - back
11. A reference to slavery in the U.S, and to the invasion of Mexico by the U.S. - back
12. William Paley (1743-1805) English theologian & philosopher, from Principals of Moral and Political Philosophy, 1785 - back
13. "He that findeth his life shall lose it..." - Matthew 10:39 - back
14. Cyril Tourneur (1575?-1626) The Revengers Tragadie - back
15."... a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" - 1 Corinthians 5:6 - back
16. In 1848, Democratics nominated Lewis Case for U.S. president, later defeated by Zachary Talor - back
17. A member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, a fraternal organization orginating in England in the mid-1700s. - back

Thoreau Reader: Home - Civil Disobedience Intro - Civil Disobedience - 2
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil2.html

Thoreau Reader: Home - Civil Disobedience Intro - Civil Disobedience - 3
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil3.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Do you just spam that into every Sheehan thread you disagree with?
Thoreau doesn't preclude criticism of Sheehan's behavior. But I do wish my dad owned a pencil factory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. SPAM? Where else have I done this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
38. I am quite sure the irony of your response escapes you. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. lol
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
29. that's kinda hard to follow
First he goes on about anarchy and sounds kinda laissez-faire "Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way;"

Yet isn't he asking the government to get in the way of the slave trade?

Also, I am wondering, was he, by any chance, paid by the word?

Finally, Democrats nominated Lewis Cass to run for President? Lewis mofo Cass? :wtf: Zinn says of Cass - "pompous, pretentious, honored (Harvard gave him an honorary doctor of laws degree in 1836, at the height of Indian removal) - claimed to be an expert on Indians. But he demonstrated again and again, in Richard Drinnon's words (Violence in the American experience: winning the west) a 'quite marvelous ignorance of Indian life.' I also note that there is a 'Cass county' in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
52. Timely post and a great reminder to those of us who stay behind our keyboards while
people like Cindy do all the work. (I really gotta get out there and DO something)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
56. I love you, Swamp Rat!
:applause:

I think Cindy is in NO today. You oughta go see her. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
11. I really wish I could have joined her from Crawford to Washington
but am already committed to a different trip for this year. I can't afford both and can't leave my kitty alone for that long anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. También yo.
Yo estaba tomando un curso de estadísticas, y después llegó el Katrina. :(

:hi: ¿todo bien?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
71. Si todo es bien con migo y usted?
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. It's like protesting the police while they're trying to find the guy who mugged you.
Her "strategy", if there is one, is terrible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
26. here's a thought: if those Dems are so eager to impeach or end the war, why not LIST
the obstructionists for us to target?

I would have more respect for Pelosi et al if she said, "I wanted to end the war, but I knew Congressman X,Y, and Z would vote with the Republicans if I tried to go to far. If you want a different outcome, squeeze them." I could respect that more than pretending that a half-baked compromise followed by a capitulation is actually a good thing.

Why to the constantly have to put bows on what everyone can clearly say is a turd? Call it a turd and say you will revisit the issue later when you have the votes to do better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Target Voinovich. Target Domenici. Target the people on the fence.
Just a few more Republican congresscritters on board, and we can end this stupid war.

The Democrats are already on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
58. I think Pelosi is the leader of the 'let's not impeach' club
So I don't think she would ever disclose such a list. It is painfully obvious that she shut Conyers down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
67. yeah, he talked about impeachment on stephanopolus last sunday but didn't say he was going forward
just that there was a lot of public support for it.

I think I read elsewhere that Pelosi would strip him of his chairmanship if he went ahead with it on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. Yes I read that too
I think there is more to her threat. I also think the possibility of losing party support is scary for Conyers. And I can't blame him for that. Pelosi has him by the balls, and she is the one we need to be pressuring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
27. Why do you hate Cindy? Why are you a hater?
Why, I bet you even hate America!

(eyes jp suspiciously)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
30. Despite all the good he's done, Conyers has bottled up
Kucinich's impeachment bill in his committee. Cindy is right to pressure Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. I agree. Didn't he asked us to sign his petition to look into
impeaching Bush. Then an aid came forward and said he asked help with babysitting. Then someone attacked his wife physically, and she let this other women have it back. Something is not right here. Is he being threatened? It just seems wrong not to go back to Conyers and remind him of his earlier stance on this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #36
59. He also collected money from many of us and then dropped the ball
I keep hearing from people who know far more about this than I do that Pelosi shut him down. The threat of losing the support of the leadership of the party is looming heavy on John Conyers. So yes, he is being threatened. And it is heartbreaking to watch him stuck in the middle of the party over country mentality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
83. Yep, I signed that one, Conyers was my hero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
31. since nobody else here is willing to get off his/her duff, but merely
to criticize, she is free to protest whomever and however she sees fit.

If it bothers you so much, why don't you set an example and show her and the rest of us how it SHOULD be done?

Everybody's got the answer about Cindy, as though she had been elected to represent us. She is an activist, doing what activists do. She picks her battles and you are free to pick yours.

Why does it bother you so much what she does? She didn't ask you what she should do, she is a free person living in a democracy and exercising her RIGHT to protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Why do you assume that just because people post here they're not activist
or involved?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. because I haven't read any reports of any actions that amounted
to more than carrying signs or writing LTTEs. You know, stuff without any particular risk or discomfort. Stuff that doesn't really attract much attention and is therefore "noncontroversial."

So show us how to do it, stick your neck out, risk arrest and/or humiliation, scorn, ridicule, and even death. Then you can criticize Cindy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophie_en_rose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
57. Yes! Burn the First Amendment, because Cindy Sheehan humiliates herself.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. ?? what does that even mean?
is it time for your meds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #33
61. They aren't even carrying signs or writing LTTEs!!
Their version of activism is typing hateful messages on DU. That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #32
60. I know many of them are not involved!
I know for a fact than some of the worst Cindy bashers are not doing a damn thing other than keyboard commando patrol here on DU. They live in my community and NEVER come to a rally, a vigil, a meeting, a free movie or help us lobby. NEVER. The have come to our local DU meetups and that's it. So I am not assuming anything; I am positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
70. oh, I am SOOO surprised to hear that! NOT!!!
I am not allowed by DU rules to say where I feel 99.999% positive they are coming from, what motivates them ... suffice it to say that "some people" have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and ridiculing, demeaning, and distorting all efforts to change it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Your user name suits you!
And yes, let's remember that there is an evil status quo in BOTH parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. Nice strawman, ima-sinnic
Edited on Thu Jul-12-07 07:40 AM by robcon
NO ONE has objected that Cindy didn't have the RIGHT to protest anyone she wants to.

The objection was whether it MADE SENSE to do so.

But nice attempted diversion, ima.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. Brava, ima! Agreed and applauded! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophie_en_rose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #31
55. Um. Insert the name "Ann Coulter" or "freepers" and consider your argument.
They're doing what they do, so how can you criticize them? They're exercizing their rights, too.

But they're ideas are unreasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #55
62. again I say, lead us oh wise one in a "reasonable" action
you have risked nothing and have accomplished nothing.
yet you feel free to criticize, as though you are some wise and experienced sage who knows all the answers.
go back to your safe, cozy, letter-writing existence.
be careful not to rock the boat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
34. "At least she can remind Conyers that his party is the party of slavery." ???
The modern day Democratic party is the party of civil rights, which Conyers knows, and the Congressional Black Caucus knows, but Cindy Sheehan and you seem to have forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
37. When Cindy apologizes for calling our party the party of slavery and starting every war....
fill in the blanks!

Cindy started this. She is the one who bad mouthed all of us. I see people upset at her. They have a friggin right to be!

As of now, she is campaigning AGAINST US. Something she has in common with the Republicans. That point seems not to have sunk in to some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #37
51. Yup!
:thumbsup:

Her latest comments were a last straw for me. She should have stuck with keeping her eye on Bush/Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
39. Kucinich wouldn't make any sense.
He's for impeachment and doing something to end the war now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
40. What are you doing to end the war?
What positive suggestions do you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #40
63. Good question
I wonder how long you will have to wait for an answer.

Hell, the way this board has deteriorated, I am expecting to see posts defending the invasion of Iraq any day now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
45. Kucinich would probably appreciate it.
Personally,I'd love to see people doing stuff like that,even if it were directed at me.It's what America is all about,and it's bigger than my own feelings.

If the people they protest took this attitude the strategy would work for both camps.The protesters get to pressure the people they feel can do something*,exercising their rights as Americans.The politicians can both look like they support those same rights,which I'm sure most of them do,and still maintain a safe distance strategically.

*The reason I have no problem with Democrats being protested is because protesting Republicans is a 100% waste of time.They are thicker than whale omelets and simply wont listen to anything,period.Democrats ARE willing to listen.Most of them believe in the very same things and just have different views on how to get there.They can be influenced,they can be pushed,because I feel it's where the Dems really want to be in their hearts anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
47. I'm with you
demonstrating against Conyers at this point is what I would imagine republicans doing because of the aggressive manner that he's confronting the administration. Moreover, Conyer's committee work could actually lead to the remedies Cindy Sheehan supports. It's amazing that instead of supporting those excellent efforts she would consider protesting him. It's dumbfounding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
64. Excellent efforts??
I must have higher standards than you do, cause ever since Pelosi took impeachment off the table, I sure haven't seen anything excellent out of Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. good for you and your 'higher standards'
typical rhetoric, though.

'Impeachment now' supporters, more often than not, like to cast themselves as morally superior to anyone who hasn't called for moving immediately to an impeachment, even though a vast majority of those criticized have worked just as hard, (or harder) to confront the administration and hold them to account for their crimes and abuses.

Careful up there on your high horse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. I am on a high horse for expecting an elected representative
to uphold his constitutional duties AND keep his word?

Guess I better go buy a saddle then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. you are on a high horse
for suggesting that you must have 'higher standards' than I do.

Good luck with that arrogance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. When did I say that?
I am merely expecting an elected representative to actually REPRESENT and UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION. Now is that implying I have higher standards than ANYONE? NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
49. Uhm How about a source?
Could you be bothered to hyperlink a source here?

If it isn't too much trouble?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. This story is supect.
It just doesn't sound quite right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
50. i don't understand Cindy's logic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
65. Ahhh haaaa as the reality strikes...now people start to understand what others have
for quite a while.

EXACTLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
76. Like it or not, Dems are the majority, and they have funded this war further.
It is our DUTY to demand they do the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
79. so---Cindy doesn't know the effects of the protests at the 1968 DEMOCRATIC Convention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
80. Wellstone?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
81. I want to know why Cindy is starting this now just as Republicans are coming around on the war?
Impeaching NOW will not remove Bush. Let's cut war funding with enough votes to override a veto before we start this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Good point
I really don't know why Cindy is doing this.

1) you're right. We need to work for cutting war funding, getting out of Iraq first. The Reps are starting to come around. Impeachment would take time, and would dominate everything, thus delaying action on Iraq. Why do this just as some Reps are starting to come around on Iraq? Impeachment would harden party lines I am afraid and make Reps even LESS likely to vote to limit Iraq. Much better to work on Iraq first, because lives are on the line on this issue. Not to mention, if we can't work on Iraq, impeachment would be even more difficult. Impeach now and we wind up with nothing....do Iraq first and we have a shot at both.

2) Cindy is wrong. Pelosi CANNOT take the lead to impeach Bush and Cheney. What Cindy probably hasn't even thought about is that Pelosi would be next in line if Bush and Cheney were justly removed. If Pelosi led the impeachment battle, the whole thing could and would be painted as her personal power play. Impeachment is a long shot to succeed anyway, but it is dang near impossible if Pelosi leads the charge. She HAS to look like she is not encouraging impeachment. If impeachment is going to happen, someone else has to take the lead. So what is Cindy thinking? IS Cindy thinking? Doesn't she grasp that Pelosi is the LEAST likely Congressperson on the planet to support impeachment?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC