I've come to the conclusion that if we are to get any relief from these squatters

[madokie]

in the whitehouse we are going to have to go after the MSM. Without their telling it like it is instead of how bush's* crew wants it told people won't believe all the shit that is happening, hell there is enough not believing it now and that is why the congress critters haven't been raked over the coals to do what is one of the most important aspects of their job and thats to remove these crooks. They can do it with the blessings of our Constitution and the wishes of our founding fathers. not to mention the 70% of us who want their sorry asses out and now.

it does me no good to talk to my critters as they are :puke:s to the core, inhofe and coburn are deaf and blind dumb as a post. so my efforts from this point on is to concentrate on the messengers, the one's who are pushing this neo'CON wet dream off on us.

[raccoon]

1. I think there's a lot to what you say. The MSM are definitely the

* admin's hos.

[madokie]

2. sure they are

enabling treasonous bastages

[Fresh_Start]

3. I'm wondering if we need tools against the Congress as well

for example imagine if we could impeach the entire Congress based purely on a simple vote or petition or lack of confidence
Congress MIGHT be a tad more responsive to the voters if their ass was grass anything the voters were displeased.

[madokie]

4. something needs to be done. we know for a fact, shit we're living it, that the

present system isn't working. I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned a situation as we have today and I do understand that there can't be anything foolproof especially on something as complex as our Constitution. Our window for stopping the complete takeover of our government is fading fast. We have to do something

[Robbien]

5. There are all kinds of groups whose goal is to change the media

Media Matters for one.

Get active.

[madokie]

6. I don't have much to offer except a kick in the ass maybe

I can type like crazy its just I need something to type, if you get my drift

[Robbien]

7. Then give them a LTTE kick in the ass

Oklahoma papers need LTTEs from people with your viewpoint. Write them and write them often. Whether your LTTEs get published or not each one makes a small difference to the viewpoint of the paper. Some editor has to read them all and LTTEs have an effect on that editor.

[madokie]

9. I do from time to time but I think they only make the trash can

I think they have someone who is a graduate of the 'karl rove's school of emails'

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Agreed on the MSM. Also, work to oust the one's like your

critters. I have the same problem with my Rep Biggert (R). I really like my Senators (Durbin and Obama), but my district is so red it's hard to even get a Democrat to show up! But we're making progress!

Late, late last night (well actually early, early this morning), I had CNN on. When I looked at the crawl I catch "because Congress did not approve $100 million in funding says the Army". Now, I admit to throwing my hands up and changing the channel while the media was re-running every snippet of news they could speculate on and started piling on the cops at the VT campus. I didn't stick around to see what the entire crawl said, but my impression was that it was over funding the Iraq War. Pissed me off!

[madokie]

10. we use optical scan counters and I think theres something fishy with the fact

we have the two we do because you can't find many republicans at the local level, all democrats. Up to a few years ago the poll workers would remind each voter to make sure they insert the ballot the right way, not any more. I don't know if the scanners will read either side, top or bottom but I suspect they won't. Last I read it cost bunches of bucks per precinct. to get hand recount. If there was a viable choice for where to live I would have to give it some serious thought but for me there isn't. so fight on I must

[porphyrian]

11. Five or six conservatives own all of the corporate media.

Everyone stood by and let them de-regulate the media. And, to channel republicant stupidity (though it's actually correct in this instance), even Clinton is partially to blame for making it happen. It's not like they stole country behind our backs. They did it in our faces, and everyone watched like it was another reality show.

[madokie]

12. Yes they kept clinton preoccupied so they could slide shit like this

past him, us too. I'm not apologizing for bill but he was being hit from every angle including up and down. To the perpetrators of this neo'CON hell we are living in today clinton wasn't supposed to win the election of '02

[porphyrian]

13. True enough. Pappy bush was surprised he lost that year.

I'll bet that's when they started planning how to better rig elections in the future.

[madokie]

14. you know it. there was no way in an honest election that * could have beat

Ann Richards for the governors seat in '94, no way, she was loved by Texans but they, like the rest of us 6 years later were suckered. I knew it then as I know it now

[leveymg]

15. 3 things would change a lot: bring back the fairness doctrine;

reintroduction of media ownership laws to break up the big media conglomerates, and reform of public finance of elections laws.

Two out of three of these would merely require legislation to return things to the pre-Reagan-Bush 41 status quo. Not really a radical move, at all. The third would require overturn of a 1997 Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Vallejo.

[warren pease]

16. Not to sound like the copy editing police, but...

The decision was Buckley v Valeo and it came down in 1976. Here's Wiki's quick summary:

"Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns."

Corporations have been granted "personhood" for centuries (not sure when the first legal affirmation was), which effectively means they enjoy all the benefits of any breathing American citizen under Constitutional law, but have none of the associated legal responsibilities. In 1976, they were affirmed as persons with a political voice, and that voice takes the form of money.

So as you point out, we now live in a bribe-ocracy, where those with the most cash get the best no-bid contracts or the lightest regulatory scrutiny that money can buy. As a result, we have two political parties that are almost exclusively dedicated to serving the interests of about 2 percent of the population, along with 5,000 or so major corporations. So maybe 600,000 rich elites and 5,000 or so corporations, whose boards the elite sit on, are the prime or sole concerns of official Washington. And they get instant access to their Congressional "dependents" whenever they want to rig the system in some new, creative way that lets them steal even more money. Everybody else can just take a number and wait for a decade or two.

And that influence shows up in things like the health care system. Any sane person knows that single-payer, universal access is the only way to go, and that the for-profit medical insurance industry is nothing but a money-sucking parasite getting fat on human misery. However, none of the Dem candidates except Kucinich advocates single payer. They’re all talking about some kind of expanded "coverage," which is just code for "let’s let the insurance industry fuck up the new system just like they did the existing one."

The best way to curb the overwhelming political influence of the rich and powerful is through public financing of campaigns. Realistically, it doesn't matter what we do to restrict their political reach. They'll find many legal ways to bend the rules and continue "donating" to their favorites. But at least normal people will be able to participate to some degree in the political favors auction.

Problem is, only legislation can change the way campaigns are financed and Congress doesn't want an end to corporate patronage. They whine about spending half their time grubbing for money, but they have staffers to do that for them. They just enjoy the benefits -- lavish golf trips to Scotland, Caribbean cruises, corporate jets, the occasional untraceable $10K in bearer bonds. It’s a nice life and they’re just not going to voluntarily give it up.

Also, the Fairness Doctrine is a bit overrated if I remember correctly. All it did was compel entities presenting political opinion over the public airwaves – such as TV punditry and wingnut radio – acknowledge that there are other points of view on the subject they're discussing. Those points of view don’t get equal time or equal weight; in fact, the FD would probably allow a moderator to use alternate viewpoints as joke lines and just have a jolly old GOP snicker about those simple souls on the left. But my memory may be faulty. Anybody else remember the FD differently?


wp

[DemReadingDU]

17. morning kick