Time to face some facts, folks

[proud2BlibKansan]

Conyers is banning the color of pink in his hearings. Pelosi is having people arrested for coming to her office. Neither of them will move forward on impeachment.

The American people should not fear their government; the government should fear the people.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. You're saying

Conyers should welcome disruptors to his hearings?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Wearing pink is disruptive?

I better throw out half my wardrobe! :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

10. He's had enough experience to know that the

people who show up in pink outfits tend to disrupt his hearings.

You can play this as Conyers being a fascist, but it won't go anywhere. People don't have a right to disrupt congressional hearings, and Conyers is well within his rights to prevent them from doing so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I wear pink all the time and I wore pink when I was in DC visiting Congress

and I was only as disruptive as a person can be walking down the halls of the office building. No sign, no loud conversation, just the sound of my feet on the floor. Oh and I did say hello to people who passed me in the hall.

Yet you say it would have been okay for Conyers to decide I was a threat and had I decided to exercise my rights as a citizen and attend one of his hearings it would have been okay for him to have me arrested.

Is that what you are saying?

[MonkeyFunk]

23. I'm saying

you're being disingenuous by pretending that he has no reason to implement this rule.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Okay let me say this then

It is within his right to remove disrupters. But by banning pink, he is saying that all people who wear pink are disruptive. And you and I both know that is not true. I am sitting here watching Michael Moore on Hardball and I can see 3 people wearing pink in the audience. But they are not being disruptive. So where does Conyers get off declaring that pink is a sign of a disruptive person?

[MonkeyFunk]

47. From experience

[Cha]

64. That does seem too broad

brush to me..heck the pinkos could suddenly decide on any color of the rainbow and then where would the rules go?

[WinkyDink]

36. He can forget it, if he thinks a mere color will stop the people from speaking.

[tbyg52]

89. And lots of people have "known"

that people with certain hair and clothing were "disruptive." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Even if 99% are, that's no excuse for prejudging the one. Remove them if they actually cause disruption, only.

[Rosemary2205]

15. A very disingenuous response IMHO.

But banning "pink" isn't likely to take care of the "problem" anyway.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Why is it disengenous?

[Rosemary2205]

28. Oh come on.

Code pink disrupting every hearing/meeting they can figure out how to get into and you are going to sit there and bat your eyelashes and ask "what's wrong with pink?" You know very well the purpose of the new ban is to attempt to cut down on the disruptions.

Personally, I don't think it will work the way Conyers thinks it will.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. But I am not a Code Pinker

Everyone who wears pink is not going to go in and disrupt a public meeting.

I never said I didn't understand why he felt the need to make this rule. I am saying it is silly and over reaching.

[Rosemary2205]

38. Then I misunderstood your post

my apologies. I took it that you were saying you don't understand why he would ever think pink could possibly signify a problem.

My mistake.

[L. Coyote]

57. If wearing pink is disruptive, why did the police torturing me make me wear a pink dress?

:rofl:

[mzteris]

86. Delores Umbridge love pink, too!

[porphyrian]

2. I think they do fear us, just not as much as the other guys. - n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

3. Link please?

Where is your proof?

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. From the activists who were banned and arrested

I am on several of their email lists.

Get involved and you can be on their lists too. :)

[marylanddem]

4. Michael Moore points out in "Sicko" how French government

IS afraid of the people because they take to the streets whenever they want something changed/bettered. If this is true - about banning the color pink - then Conyers is no better than the rest of them. Source for this bit of information? (apologize if this is old news; i just hadn't heard it)

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. The activists told me

Ann Wright, a true American hero, was the first person who told me this. She is in jail right now, after being arrested in Conyers office today.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. That's a shame.

What an embarassment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Any wonder why their approval ratings are so low?

[zabet]

7. They are guilty of aiding and abetting...

Bushco's crimes if they do not Impeach.

They are also resorting to Bushco tactics to stop dissent in their 'arena'.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Yes you get it too

:)

[OzarkDem]

11. Time to push harder

They will only respond to pressure from citizens, from voters.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Like today in Conyers' office

Yeah, I think you get it too :hi:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Oh yeah, I get it

Makes me sick and makes me so angry I can barely see straight. My dad is rolling in his grave over this shit. And he was a conservative Democrat. But I know this would just enrage him.

[underseasurveyor]

20. Yup.........There it is

The more things change the more they STAY THE SAME.
Same ol' same ol' shit just a different decade.:banghead:

[Swamp Rat]

25. "SHUT UP"

That is the underlying message.

[rinsd]

30. What a shock coming from somone who wants to destroy the party.

[DancingBear]

43. Yep, that's me all right

Same guy who worked the primaries in NH.

Same guy who volunteered for MoveOn in OH for 5 days.

At my own expense - both times.

Same guy who went to Crawford twice and wrote about it here - at length.

Yep, same guy.

Just a lot wiser these days.

Keep reading - the truth comes a bit slower for the true believers. :rofl:

edit: Just saw your avatar. It's gonna take a LOT of reading...

[rinsd]

44. Cool. Now you can share with the other malcontents how you spoke truth to power.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

61. "She opened her good eye . . ."

lol

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. I Like Those Facts. Good For Both Of Them!

I know you hate the Democrats, but I'm proud of them. I don't see a thing wrong with their decisions. No one should have to put up with irrational harassment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I don't hate them; I just want them to represent the people

cause they aren't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Define Your Definition Of 'The People'.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. You're kidding, right?

[DancingBear]

31. Oh, this is gonna get good

I got 20 that says your head will explode.

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. LOL!!

:rofl:

And I was just reaching for my dictionary! Hey DB, define "the people". Come on, you know the answer!! I'll even give you a smiley sticker just for giving it your best shot. :)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Couldn't Help But Notice She Didn't Answer The Question.

See, the problem with your post above and the problem I've seen time and time again from the poster I asked the question to and those of similar mindsets, is this short sighted and narrow minded perception that they speak for 'the people', or that 'the people' can be assigned into a neat singular concept. But that's a bunch of malarkey. No, 'the people' is not what you mention above. No, 'the people' are not those who demand impeachment right now. No, 'the people' is not some singular idealistic representation of one clique or another. The bottom line is, 'the people' includes any and ALL of them, which encompasses a HUGE spectrum of opinions, ideals, concepts and desires.

There is not ONE poster on this message board that has the right, the intellect, the knowledge, the position, the power or the legitimacy to claim their message or someone else's message is or isn't representative of 'the people'. To do so is an amazing exercise in arrogance and ignorance and shows quite readily the limitation of that person's ability to reason.

We are all 'the people'. Those that want gun control, those that don't. Those that oppose abortion, those that are pro choice. Those that are religious, those that aren't. Those that want impeachment, those that don't. Those that support the war in Iraq, those that think it's time to go. The list goes on and on. But no matter where somebody falls on any combination of issues they are still part of 'the people'.

So to come on and declare that ANYONE, ANYONE within our party does or doesn't represent 'the people' is amazingly arrogant and flawed in premise. Not one of us has the right to define such a concept, and the sooner some of you can figure that out the sooner maybe we can see a stop to the ridiculous accusations that so and so isn't representing 'the people'.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Nope. Too Many Here Think That Their Extremist Opinion = 'The People'.

So I'm curious what your definition is...

[AnExtremist]

50. Extremists such as these?

Extremists are people too. Sometimes they're better people than "Scholars of the constitution" as you so often like to cite :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Great first post!!

:hi:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[U4ikLefty]

79. That was a nasty, uncalled-for attack. Did you wake up on the wrong

side of your SUV last night???

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Bet Ya A 1000 Bucks I'm Right Too.

It is an amazingly rare occurrence for me to say such a thing. When I do so, it is because I have solid reason to do so.

[U4ikLefty]

84. Bet me $1000...about saying what???

You seem to always imply a "solid basis" for your angry rants.

BTW (on edit), if your basis was soooo solid, then your post wouldn't have been deleted.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Wrong On Both Counts.

First of all, there was nothing angry in my post at all. It was far more lighthearted jest than anything else.

Second of all, the post was against the rules. I recognize that and shouldn't have posted it. But its being against the rules does not constitute its premise being false. You can comprehend that, no?

But let's just say certain things can just jump out at ya sometimes. Sometimes, I feel the need to make it known that I'm not being fooled. That's all the post was about.

[U4ikLefty]

87. I'm right on all counts. I guess we can just look at the post to find the truth.

Oh wait, it was deleted.

BTW, you posted no premise, just a mean-spirited attack on a new member that was deleted.

Nice way to trot out the welcome wagon to newly-joined progressives on this board.

[Karenina]

29. Today I grokked

how Conyers is just playing a role in BETRAYING US. I'd suspected it before but now my fears have been confirmed.

[PBass]

34. Conyers authored HR 635 in Dec. 2005, which mentioned possible impeachment.

Why would he change his mind?

[Karenina]

40. Indeed he did, HOWEVER

NOW is the time to take those who INTEND to make America a fiefdom OUT. The window of opportunity is small and MANY WINDOWS have opened and closed in the last 6 years. It's ONLY GOTTEN WORSE and time is short. The mechanisms to lock America down are ALL IN PLACE. Conyers is PRETENDING to be the great "hope" while equivocating and JERKING US ALL OFF!! WHY???

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Yes, I don't think he is the great man I used to believe he was

Remember the hearings in the basement? Whatever happened to THAT John Conyers?

[Karenina]

49. Ich fühle mich TOTAL VERARSCHT!

(Here come the cameras) "SHOWTIME!" WHEN has he FOLLOWED THROUGH ON ANYTHING??? He's compiled enough info to blow *co. into outer space. And NOW he backs away from doing so? :wtf::freak::wtf:

[HughMoran]

68. I agree

Dems shouldn't have to be constantly harassed when they are doing their best to hold these knuckledraggers accountable.

Some people are never happy.



Ever.

[MrMickeysMom]

72. Funny, that's what I say when I come across most of your posts!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Then You Need To Stop The Knee Jerk Reactions And Actually Pay Attention To What's Being Said.

Cause though Lord knows I'm a recipient of irrational harassment often, I do not initiate it.

[MrMickeysMom]

78. Really, now?

Well, I'll just have to start going to "paying attention school", right after opposite day ends, today. :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Glad To Hear It. I Look Forward To Seeing Your More Accurate Perception In The Future.

Peace!

[smiley_glad_hands]

39. Go protest the moderate repugs. eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. Thanks for paying attention

They HAVE BEEN protesting the repukes. But the Dems are in charge now. So they get the pressure.

[smiley_glad_hands]

58. Its the moderate repugs

whose vote you need to sway. All she is, is a distraction as far as I'm concerned.

[warren pease]

42. Code pink should just become code blue (or yellow or green or red) for awhile...

Clearly, when 54 percent of the recent ARG poll respondents want to impeach cheney and 45 percent want Bush impeached as well, the will of the people isn't being carried out by these corporatized pantywaists.

Their hearings SHOULD be disrupted. It's exactly what they deserve because every time the judiciary committee holds a hearing that's not moving impeachment forward, they're acting as BushCo enablers and most certainly are not doing the peoples' business. And if that's not enough, they're willing accomplices in the great BushCo crime wave and mass murder rampage.

If I were a member of code pink, I'd adjust my wardrobe accordingly and keep fucking with them until they get the goddamn point -- which is that they are our employees, and even though they actually work for their campaign "donors," they occasionally need to show a little respect for the concept of a representative democracy.

I will fear my government just as soon as I stop laughing my ass off at their transparently corrupt self-enrichment schemes, their gross ineptitude and their bottomless hypocrisy as they invoke everything from gawd to color-coded fear-mongering to buy them just a little more time at the levers of power -- just long enough to get their hands on that pool of Iranian oil.

Government is all shuck and jive most of the time, but sometimes circumstances demand that elected representatives at least pretend to care about the future of the republic. It's a lot to ask, especially since I can't afford to buy a congressperson or senator of my own, but somewhere buried deep within those pricey silk blouses and $3K suits, perhaps there's a small part of their humanity left that hasn't yet turned to ashes and dust.


wp

[MrMickeysMom]

75. You know, people use different codes in places to denote the state of affairs...

... Seems like going to code blue would be my next move. I'm in full agreement. If it gets too bad, we'll all meet at the barricades during a "code red", cause you know we're fucked then.

This beats the hell out of the Tom Ridge system!

[Jed Dilligan]

46. "We can't do that, there would be rioting in the streets!"

I would like that sentence to be spoken with much greater frequency behind closed doors in DC.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. September 15

They are looking for people to volunteer to be arrested.

[DancingBear]

54. I believe I could free up my calendar

All the folks with Hillary and Kerry and Obama and DLC avatars are doing it too!!

Wait - um, you mean they're not?

Oops. My bad.

[Bandit]

48. Viva

:patriot:

[L. Coyote]

55. Neither of your statements are true. Don't expect the impossible.

Conyers is not banning pink. Pelosi is not having people arrested.

Conyers is asking that people refrain from demonstrating on camera during witness testimony, a very reasonable request.

And, a large herd of protesters who refuse to leave a Congressional office are arresting themselves, just like they planned in all probability.

Twisting the truth does not serve the purpose of persuading these public servants that the time is right. Please alienate a Republican, if you must tick off members of the House.

Don't expect your Dems in Congress to represent you by pissing into the wind! They are much wiser than you realize, and know that things don't change in a day (except, of course, when our leaders are shot in the head).

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Yes both of my statements are true

Conyers has banned pink. It's a fact. And Pelosi is arresting citizens who want to see her. I was there at her office and heard her staff threaten to call the police "like we did the last time" if we didn't leave. And all we did was walk in and ask to talk to her. Pelosi is the LEAST approachable of all members of congress. She is NOT representing the people of this country; she is sending them away in handcuffs. And Conyers is keeping them out of his meetings and hearings.

I know it hurts to hear, but it's true.

I am not talking about what happened today. I am talking about policies that both of these reps have established since the Dems took over Congress. They are no longer allowing citizens to access their offices.

And for the umpteenth kazillionth time, the republicans were lobbied heavily when they were in charge. They are still being lobbied. But the Dems are in the driver's seat now so they get the most pressure.

[L. Coyote]

60. What you just said contradicts the OP.

If Pelosi's staff is threatening to call the police when people will not leave her office as requested, good for them. I would do the same thing if a group of people refused to leave my office when asked. I believe in civil conduct. Next time, make an appointment.

So, Pelosi in not arresting people. Her staff is asking people to comply with requests to leave. Big difference. If they do not leave as requested, they should be arrested.

Hooray for Pelosi and her staff for not letting a bunch of uncivil people rule her turf!

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Yes she has had people in her office arrested

for being there.

[L. Coyote]

80. For not leaving when asked to do so. There is a difference.

It is the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of United States of America, not a public sidewalk. If you want to turn it into a bus station where anyone can loiter, expect to get arrested, of course.

How do you think you will be treated if you do the same in John Boehner's office? Really? Or George Bush's?

[EFerrari]

62. Has Cindy moved at all on how she's filing? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. I haven't heard yet

I'll let you know when I do.

[EFerrari]

70. Thanks. Long day -- although longer if you're trying to get

processed out of jail.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. I talked to the guy who is bailing them out 3 hours ago

He said it would be several hours before they get out.

[Joe Fields]

63. Nothing short of huge organized marches on the capitol will move

these people toward impeachment. The citizens have to protest in the streets.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. September 15

[rox63]

88. See you at the barricades in DC on 9/15!

:hi:

[GOTV]

69. Maybe you'll see that these tactics AREN'T WORKING and you'll be imaginitive and adapt ....

... or you'll just complain that things are not running your way.

You want impeachment? the house is where you go last.

Don't listen to me though. Your way is working so well.

[Breeze54]

74. That's what asshole warmongers said during the Vietnam War protests!!

:eyes:


Go back to warmongerland.

[Breeze54]

73. Time to March on Washington, DC!!

[wildhorses]

81. why should they fear us

if they have all the guns?