THis might just be one way to FORCE the Dem leadership to act...

[Didereaux]

A long shot admittedly, bu no one I have read seems to have a better idea...in fact ideas of any caliber are in short supply concerning this proble. So here it is.

Go to YOUR Congressman and extract a promise to vote AGAINST Nancy Pelosi as Speaker next term. Get it into the record. Keep hammering, individually, by petition, by demonstration, all of it. I have a strong feeling these pathetic b#$*&#RDS will play ball to keep their jobs. That short little 2 year contract comes round to often for them to ignore, unlike the arrogant 6yr Senators.

........

[Hydra]

1. Pelosi isn't the problem

She's like Bush- She's a symptom. Corps don't want impeachment and don't want to end the war, therefore Pelosi can't allow it to occur.

Corporate personhood and campaign donations MUST END. Corps must be beholden to the Government, not the other way around.

[Didereaux]

2. you have completely bumfuzzeled me with that....

I'll be dammed if I honestly can make sense of it

[Hydra]

3. I'm saying it doesn't matter who leads the house and senate

as long as the corps are calling the shots. Strike at the root, not the branch.

[Didereaux]

4. uh okay, but....

How do you get rid of the 'corps'? Can't vote them out, and thanks to a lot of folks present on this forum we can't own the weapons necessary to remove them forcibly? Do we give them all 'Time-outs'? And just an aside, say we successfully convince Kraft and Hellmans to commit hiri-Kiri...then where does the mayo come from - the Chinese haven't, to my knowledge anyway, entered that market yet.

No, I think all considering I will stay with my idea, or just vote all incumbent out every election and bankrupt your 'corps' because then they will have to buy the entire Congress every two years. Say, I am beginning to like that idea just as well as my first...I'm becoming a veritable fount!
;)

[monktonman]

5. um...you wanna back that up a bit dude?

"thanks to alot of folks present on this forum we cant own the weapons necessary to remove them forcibly"
Sounds an awful lot like something I expect to read on another board.

[Didereaux]

6. thought that would bring out the 'veerers'......

You see what you are doing? You veer from the topic, one of immediate importance if you believe whats written on DU, and drag it off inot the manure pits. I used that language fro two reasons, firstly as an extreme way of pointing out that you cannot remove legitimate things by force of arms, and secondly for the personal gratification of my own perversity. We and I mean you, I and everyone else have a very immediate, a very tangible, and a very threatening reality to either resolve quickly, or we face a major change in our way of life. The very framework of our government has been corrupted to a scary degree. Deal with that threat first, then we can go back to nit-picking the finer details of what it is we saved, don't do anything but argue abstractions fro just a few more years, and you will assuredly not be arguing abstractions.