War Is A Crime .org
HumansForPeace.org -- AfterDowningStreet.org
You are herecontent / CNN Larry King Live: Kucinich Defends His Flip-Flop
By Anonymous - Posted on 17 March 2010
that a piece of shit could speak.
What a lying scumbag.
I'm sorry crapcinich, I Used to respect you, but no more
After Downining street should vote for ron paul in 2012.
No More Two Party dictatorship.
expect more of the same
Once this legislation is passed, and Obama signs it, It becomes the NEW LAW on healthcare, from that day forward.
With all the pitfalls in this Bill, having Corporate Controls basically intact, "WE THE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY SCREWED AGAIN". "We can thank the spineless leadership" for continuing to put the American people as "SITTING DUCKS" for the upcoming on-slaught of premimun increases, as well as the complete brunt of Corporate America's "FOR PROFIT" costs increases.
"May GOD have mercy on "We the People"
I've read very little about Dennis Kucinich going on a flight on AF One with Obama, only having read that he did and the author of the article said it wasn't known what the talk was about, or if Dennis Kucinich and Obama even spoke together.
What happened, what was discussed? The timing seems to fit quite strongly with this course modification that Kucinich is making.
I'm not sure if I read too much into him in this interview with Larry King, but I get the impression that he's become a little fearful. If he is, then was he in any way threatened, politically or otherwise, during the AF One flight?
In this interview, he speaks of presently having lost the battle for single-payer healthcare, while adding that it may possibly be achieved, some day. He doesn't strike me as really confident, at all, that it'll ever be achieved.
Many people will fault him for what he's doing, but I guess it's not really right to do this. After all, he's only one person, and only one member out of over 400 or 500 in the U.S. Congress. He's not superman.
People who fault him now for what he's now doing, where were they when GE-owned MSNBC quite despotically, un- or anti-constitutionally prohibited him from participating in Dem. Party presidential candidate debates in 2009, when the Dem. Party "leadership" again acted complicitly with Corporate America? People who didn't seriously protest this shouldn't believe that they have real moral grounds for faulting him now.
The People must defend and protect their Constitutional rights, instead of only expecting "elected" members of the Congress to do this. We've known for decades that the Congress is not a body of people who have much respect for the Constitution, yet voters kept pushing for provably corrupt candidates to be elected.
He's only one person and while his proposed bills and/or amendments were supported by other members of the Congress, they evidently were not sufficiently numerous. Since the other members of the Congress were not going to do what should be done, it's then up to The People to act.
A representative is not a savior, or superman, or ....
However, as long as he remains member of the Dem. Party, The People can be sure he'll never be able to achieve real good; not unless voters do as David Swanson says about the need to OUT all corrupt members of the Congress and replace them with people who'll stand by law, the Constitution, and The People.
Voters need to stop electing and re-electing corrupt people and need to cease the nonsensical support of candidates just because they say good or welcome things during electoral campaigns. The candidates need to be vetted before ever giving them support, or, and at worst, in parallel, and as soon as a candidate can be proven to lack integrity in important ways, then no support must be permitted for the person, or if support is already being given, then it needs to be retracted and shifted to candidates of integrity.
And voters need to defend fair, legal elections; against fraud.
Revolutionary activism is needed, and clearly on a national scale.
If good candidates are prohibited from participating in electoral debates, the voters need to protest, en masse, and they should not support other electoral candidates who support the outing of others. The Revolution must take Corporate America out of elections. It mustn't be allowed to interfere with elections. All corrupt acts related to elections need to be guarded against and prevented, or curbed.
People voting to elect and re-elect corrupt candidates is awfully repetitive and nauseating, to say the least of the ugliness involved with people voting in these ways.
If the USA was really a democracy, then most elections would need to be re-held, for more people abstain from voting than most elected candidates get for votes; besides electoral fraud also often being involved. How many candidates who have been elected over the past several decades received 51% or more of eligible voters' votes?
Aaron Russo, in an interview with Alex Jones, and for which the full interview video is posted at TheAlexJonesChannel at Youtube earlier this month, or maybe it was last year, while it's entitled, "Reflections And Warnings", argued, though insufficiently, imo, that the USA is a not a democracy, a Constitutional Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. He uses the argument that in a democracy, as he narrowly held for definition, permits 51% of a population to overrule the other 49%, including when it's arguably legitimate rights and liberties that are being overridden. Firstly, the U.S. doesn't have 51% elections; or hardly ever has any, anyway. Secondly, the democracy can be alternatively defined so that it's treated as former Canadian PM Jean Chretien said when defending same-gendre marriage or unions, having said that while Canada is a democracy, a democracy must not permit overruling the legitimate rights and liberties of a minority of the population. There's nothing wrong with saying that a majority wins when the majority is right, as we have examples of with the democratic and strong elections of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, f.e.; while the same democracy can be fine-tuned, say, so as to not legally permit a majority to override legitimate rights and liberties of any other members of the society.
Aaron Russo would've needed to be presented with an argument like this above one. And where is it said that the government of the USA is for, of and by The People? If this is in the Constitution, then it defines the government as democratic. So Aaron Russon would also need to be questioned about this argument; if this is indeed part of the Constitution.
Being a Republic doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be democratic. I just treat democracy as political candidates being elected by voters to represent them in what therefore is their government, the voters' government. Otherwise, how would politicians gain office in a Republic; through self-appointment, or appointment by corporations, or ...?
For, of and by The People tells me the government is democratic, and although that's only on paper, for now and the foreseeable future, it's nevertheless the law! Or I think it's law that the government is of this kind. The ruling elites prefer to think of it like Bush Jr spoke of it, "just a piece of paper". So is ass-wipe, that is, toilet paper, kleenex, etcetera, but there's a difference. They're not papers of law. They're how the ruling elites treat the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they're foundational law and respect for these must be established.
I'd say restored, but am not sure it's as fitting as established; meaning really established, instead of only or mostly getting or having empty respect. I think, or guess anyway, that more of the population had real respect for the Constitution during President JFK, but the respect seems to have seriously been left to past history, ever since.
People who vote to elect and re-elect corrupt candidates clearly demonstrate NO respect for the Constitution or morality, human life, legitimate rights and liberties; not just rights and liberties, but, instead, arguably legitimate ones. There's a distinction, for it's clear that these voters believe it's their right to vote for people who are corrupt and, therefore, [enemies], which, in turn, makes such voters enemies; enemies of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, country, and, by extension, all countries targeted by the ruling elite of the USA and their controlled government, which they hijacked away from The People.
The People need to take the government back; although I'm not sure that they had it more than momentarily a few times in U.S. history. If it's not quite fitting to say to take it back, then it would nevertheless be fitting to say that The People must see to making the government their government and to, therefore, take it away from the corporate ruling elites corrupting the government and country.
This requires the urgent need to cease electing and re-electing corrupt candidates to political office, and to out the corrupt ones already in office.
Why can't they be impeached? If people call for the impeachment of Yoo and Bybee, then why can't corrupt members of the Congress be impeached? And if they can be, then why are there no calls for this? Why would it be necessary to wait for the next election, especially when the wars of aggression and other corrupt policies continue and will continue for as long as the Congress remains a body consisting of many more corrupt, two-faced, forked-tongued, ... members than respectable ones? Why would it be more important to go after Yoo and Bybee than it would be to clean up the Congress? The latter is more important and urgent, I believe.
Use creditcard at WePay:
Use creditcard at PayPal:
Advertise on this site!