Since we know that they committed many war crimes related to Iraq and Afghanistan, why don't we hold our own war criminals accountable?

Why aren't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Wolfowtiz, Feith, Cambone, Yoo, Rove, et al on trial?

I'm glad to see that the American people got their day in court for what happened on 9/11, at long last. But Al-Qeada weren't the only ones responsible for 9/11, and the subsequent crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bush Administration's top officials were criminally negligent at best in regards to 9/11. And they committed numerous crimes afterwards in their criminal occupation of Iraq.

The American people deserve to have ALL of the ones responsible for the suffering on trial.

A 10-year-old Arkansas boy name Will Phillips has decided that he cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag as long as the country for which it stands refuses legal equality to its GLBT citizens.

That stand has brought young Mr. Phillips anti-gay taunts in the lunch room, but admiration from around the country, reports a Nov. 5 Arkansas Times article. The West Fork School District fifth grader clashed with a substitute teacher for his refusal to stand for the pledge, prompting a call to Will’s mother, Laura Phillips. When the principal acknowledged that Will has the right to refuse to say the pledge, Ms. Phillips asked that her son receive an apology--a request that the principal declined to honor.

A 1943 Supreme Court decision found that schools may not punish students for refusing to recite the pledge. Objections to compulsory recitation of the pledge arose from the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis that their religion does not permit expressions of allegiance to anything other than their own religion and to God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses lost their first case before the Court in 1940, and reportedly suffered from bias-motivated violence in the aftermath of that case. The Court’s 1943 decision reversed the earlier finding, and students have had the right to decline saying the pledge since then, although socially such refusal is often met with disapproval.

Such has been the case with Will Phillips’ stand, but he hasn’t backed down. Laura Phillips told the Arkansas Times that her 10-year-old is "probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair."


<http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?... >

Here's why...

The Republican would still be facing 50+ Senators, even if it wasn't a filibuster proof majority. Moreover, the Republican would have no committee chairmanships and would be marginalized.

Furthermore, Republicans from Connecticut tend to be less batshit insane and more worried about their wallets than Republicans from elsewhere. In other words, moderate.

Of course, a Democrat would be certainly be preferable, and that's probably what will happen. We'll get a Democrat in there next time Traitor Joe is up for reelection.

Either way, if Lieberman loses, the people win.

-Emancipation of the slaves

-Creation of the National Parks system

-Trust-busting

-Woman's suffrage

-Lifting restrictions on immigration from certain nations

-Unions

-The New Deal

-regulation on banks

-Social Security

-Winning World War 2

-The Fair Deal

-Civil rights

-Environmental Protection Agency

-Roe v Wade

-Americans with Disabilities Act

-electing Barack Obama President

and on and on....

Those stinking liberals, look how much PROGRESS we've made! Whatever happened to the good ole days?

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate banking committee proposed on Tuesday to drastically overhaul the regulatory system by consolidating bank agencies, creating a consumer financial protection agency and imposing new restraints on exotic financial instruments and credit rating agencies.

The 1,136-page plan by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, differs in major respects from both the White House and House plans. Even before it was made public, it had encountered sharp resistance from Republicans and powerful business interests in Washington. With only a few weeks left in the legislative session, it is all but certain that Congress will not deliver on President Obama’s request to repair the financial regulatory system by the end of the year unless major compromises are quickly struck.

Still, the long-awaited Senate plan is significant as a starting point for the lawmakers, who are increasingly talking about trying to complete legislation during the first three months of 2010. While the measure will inevitably be revised during weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations, it lays down the first marker by Mr. Dodd and other senior Democrats on the banking committee.

Mr. Dodd has said he hopes to move the bill through the banking committee in the next few weeks. In recent days he has been rewriting major portions to gain support from more Democrats on the committee.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business... >

"The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of incumbent President Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).<3>

The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority.<4> Founded by "Scoop" Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Le... >

This part, "away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years.", is where the DLC went wrong to begin with. We shouldn't have steered away from the "New Left." The Democratic Party should have married the Old Left and the New Left together, to create a truly progressive party.

I guess the moral of the story is: the Dems drew the entirely wrong conclusions from Reagan's election victories, and so went to the right and allowed corporatists to co-opt the Democratic Party.

...and a party dominated by ultra religious lunatics AND corporate lobbyists on the right.

Fucking sad. As Maher said, "We don't need a third party. We need a FIRST party."

United Technologies
Sempra Energy
Purdue Pharma
UBS AG

<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sum... >

Hit him where it hurts..his wallet.

..you are required to have served your country in uniform, preferably in a war.

Maybe there would be less clamoring to bomb, kill, and destroy if that were the case.

I know this will probably never happen, but one can dream, right?

Securities & Investment $1,985,350 $1,891,350 $94,000
Real Estate $1,470,580 $1,402,080 $68,500
Pro-Israel $1,207,390 $1,049,297 $158,093
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,134,256 $1,029,414 $104,842
Retired $975,788 $975,788 $0

<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sum... >

Can we just go ahead and call Lieberman a worthless neocon POS in "Independent" clothing?

They are Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, and Bernie Sanders from Vermont.

Kudos to them for fighting the good fight. It must get lonely for them in that chamber.

Many of the Dems who supported this bad bill will be primaried. Some of those will be defeated, and some of the primary challengers will win Congressional seats. I also believe that most of these primary challengers will be liberals, not conservatives.

The Republicans are dead. They have no momentum, and their reasons for voting against the bill were absolutely disgusting.

So, the Democratic Party will hopefully be made stronger by becoming less corporatist and more progressive, and the Republican Party will be further marginalized.

Maybe this is a pipe dream, but we'll see.

Yesterday, I posted that this bill was better than nothing, and that a more progressive bill would have had no chance. After further research and a night to sleep on it, I realized I was wrong: this bill is worse than nothing.

There is nothing, nothing that justifies Stupak's sick amendment. Furthermore, we should be dismantling the insurance company system that dominates health care, not expanding it.

I applaud the Democrats who voted against this bill. But I also have a prediction. Many of the people who voted for this bill will face fierce primary challenges, and who knows-maybe more progressive candidates will get their seats.

The Republicans will probably gain nothing from opposing this bill, because their reasons for opposing it are disgusting. Progressives and liberals, on the other hand, have a lot to gain by opposing this charade of "health care reform."

My $0.02

This bill is progress. Is it perfect? No. Is it what we really wanted? Of course not. You rarely get what you want in politics.

Right now, the Democrats who voted against the bill-even the progressive ones like Kucinich-are looking like Republicans to the average voter. Not saying that that is accurate, but that's how they are perceived.

It seems that some people would rather let the other side win then achieve anything less than what's in their dreams.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," November 5, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And as the Democrats were working inside to finalize the government takeover, Republican lawmakers proposed their own health care bill, which would lower health care premiums and end junk lawsuits.

Now, it would also do so without letting the government make decisions for you and your family and without adding billions to our national debt.

And joining me now with more on all of this are two of the organizers of today's rally, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Iowa Representative Steven King.

Congresswoman, it was less than a week — it was a week tomorrow that you announced on this very program that you wanted people to come. Twenty thousand plus people showed up. Were you as surprised as I was?

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572549... >