Democrats say No impeachment for Bush

[maddog88]

The Democratic party leadership has confirmed that they will not persue any investigations or impeachment proceedings against President Bush. This just confirms that both parties are the same and that they are working together to oppress the american people. We have every reason in the world to have the President Impeached and more than enough evidence to indict him and every member of his adminstration for treason.and crimes against humanity. Members of the democratic party need to wake up and realize that they're leadership is controled by a pack of crimminals just like the leadership of the republican party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA&eurl=
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051101950.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/pelosi...as_old_boss.htm (http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/pelosi_meet_new_boss_same_as_old_boss.htm)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/novem...6deansaysno.htm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/091106deansaysno.htm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

[YSR]

Members of the Democratic Party need to quit the Democratic Party and fuck shit up.

[Ander]

Wow, what a bunch of fucking tools.

[angus_mor]

Well k-duh, both parties operate on a twisted form of democratic centralism, which isn't even a good idea in its purest form. The CPSU produced just as many candidates, just because they're from "different" political parties doesn't mean it isn't just as autocratic.


Members of the Democratic Party need to quit the Democratic Party and fuck shit up.

The only problem is they're making too much money from lobbyists and campaign contributions and other benefactors of being a plutocratic representative. The opportunists in power aren't going to do anything that might jeopardize this, as those with the money like how the Republicans are doing all they can to give it right back to them through subsidies, tax breaks and enforcing the legislation that lets them exploit who they want, where they want, when they want. So they use all kinds of tactics to liquidate opposition in a way where they can seem like they're being challenged insofar as these challenges don't turn into actions that actually pose a threat to Republican power.

[Comrade_Scott]

go figure i fully expected nothing to happen the democrats are the wolf in sheeps clothing. just tools

[RedCommieBear]

If the Democrats (or at least most of them) weren't pro-choice, I dont' think I'd show an ounce of support for them.

[Joby]

The Democrats are the capitalist B-Team. Nothing more.

When the Republicans and their direct approach of helping corporations out become unpopular, the corporations support the Dems.

The electorate believes there's some huge difference between the two, when, in reality, there's not.

[commiecrusader]

The democrats are wolves in wolves clothing. They don't even bother pretending to be different to republicans any more. That's why they lost the last election, they were trying to be too different, appeal to views that the majority of middle class America does not support.

[Brekisonphilous]

they are all that progressives have to lead to any significant change. No other political party or movement in the U.S. even has a sliver of a chance. They are the best hope for the people now.
Perhaps if they keep the american people dissatisfied with our government now that the people have ousted the GOP, it could bring on real change that manifests in the realization that neither party is much different, and that it is time to move beyond the current parties.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 10:48 pm
they are all that progressives have to lead to any significant change. No other political party or movement in the U.S. even has a sliver of a chance. They are the best hope for the people now.
Perhaps if they keep the american people dissatisfied with our government now that the people have ousted the GOP, it could bring on real change that manifests in the realization that neither party is much different, and that it is time to move beyond the current parties.
Best hope? :rolleyes:
When was the last time that the DP helped raise the wages of working men and women around the country? Or when did they make healthcare a universal right?
I doubt that this "hope" you're talking about trickles down to the Iraqi ppl in the form of true freedom

How bout...instead of relying on political parties, we rely on the workers themselves
Would that be a stretch? :rolleyes:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 11:59 am
This just confirms that both parties are the same and that they are working together to oppress the american people.
If you realize that - why would you want the Democrats to impeach Bush? How would that be any more progressive than the Republicans' impeachment of Clinton?

Heck, even the Nixon impeachment part of restabilizing and restoring credibility to their political system - not anything which should be supported by an opponent of that system.

There's no reason to side with either party in their often content-free dead-end factional wrangles. Their factional conflicts keep getting more and more bitter - as there's less and less real policy difference between them.

[MrDoom]

NOW you realize the Republicrat parties are the same?

You been living under a rock? Voting liberal is as useless as voting conservative.

EDIT:

You know, these guys never seem to post anything outside of these liberal apologist whinings. Sure they're not bots? Even if they aren't, they're still liberal and should be restricted, being capitalist-supporters.

[SPK]

Contrary to what many have said, I do think that the Democratic Congress signals imminent change.

Things are going to get much worse. :lol:

Folks who think that the Democratic Party are going to improve the situation here are in for a really, really nasty surprise. The last time there was a major Democratic victory was 1992, with the election of Bill Clinton. The Republicans, i.e. Reagan and Bush Sr., had been in the White House for twelve years, and many people were relieved to see them go. Clinton, to put it mildly, disappointed them. Under his administration:

- Welfare “reform” was enacted, forcing many impoverished people off of the rolls and requiring them to work, in the private sector or on public projects, for substandard wages.
- The usa attacked or invaded Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably a few other countries that I can’t remember at the moment – there were so many.
- Clinton signed a federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited government recognition of same-sex marriages.
- Appeals for death-penalty cases were reduced, and the number of crimes for which the death penalty was applicable, increased.
- The mass media was deregulated with the Telecommunications Act, leading to the mergers and consolidation of the industry.
- A neoliberal, “free” trade agenda – immensely destructive to the developing world and third world – was pushed by the usa globally.
- And on and on and on…

Clinton was able to implement an agenda that had previously been considered the domain of the Republicans and the conservative movement. That’s because said agenda was not in reality specific to a political party, but instead was driven by the needs and demands of the bourgeoisie. There was at least one difference, though, between the two parties: the Democrats were able to get away with things that the Reagan and Bush Sr. could never have done, including some of the items I noted. Part of the Democratic base argued that compromises had to be made to prevent a “worse” evil, i.e. the GOP, from returning. Another part of the party’s base believed, at least implicitly, that such the impact of such policies could be limited or ameliorated under a “friendly” administration – they bought into the traditional, nonsensical idea that the Democrats were pro-worker. The bourgeoisie had initiated long-term structural adjustments in the amerikan capitalist system in the seventies, and the Clinton administration furthered those developments significantly.

The party shift in Congress, as many RevLefters have noted, is not going to end the usa’s aggression in Iraq, close down Guantanamo and the rest of amerika’s global gulag system, halt massive judicial and police repression of political activities, and so on. As recently as 2004, there were many Democratic presidential candidates, for example, who took a (rhetorical) position against the Iraq war. Without exception, every single one ultimately reversed themselves – Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and others. These people are not going to put an end to the policies implemented by the Bush administration. Instead, in the absence of independent mass movements and direct actions against the state, they are going to continue and further those policies. Just like Clinton did. And, given the historical record, there are going to many folks in the Democratic base who will accept it -- whether out of fear of a resurgent conservative movement; or because they view the Party as friendlier to working people; or because they are mollified by the sops likely to be thrown their way – like universal health care.

Furthermore, there are huge systemic imbalances in the amerikan capitalist system right now. The enormous federal budget deficits and trade deficits are two notable examples, and the country’s debt obligations are vast. If the bourgeoisie wants to move to correct these imbalances, they would prefer to do so under a government or administration that is – perceived as -- less likely to incite a backlash from working and oppressed peoples.

This obviously opens up a set of new possibilities for progressives and revolutionaries – new struggles can and must be built. There will ultimately be a disillusionment with the Democrats, probably sooner rather than later given the criticality of the situation as compared to 1992. It was during the Clinton years, for example, that the anarchist and anti-authoritarian tendencies regrouped, and that laid the foundations for the Seattle rebellion in 1999 and the movement against capitalist globalization from 1999-2001.

[Keyser]

No suprise here, I never thought that the Democrats would ever consider an impeachment of President Bush.

The Democrats are happy with the gains they have got in the Senate and House of Representatives and they, being as ever, loyal servents to their corporate masters and capitalism, don't want to rock the boat any further than they have to.

The Democrats may try and put on a radical facade in an election season, but as soon as the Democrat congressmen sit their fat buts on their seats in Congress, they vote and act like the reactionaries in the Republican Party, wholly beholden to corporate lobbyists and the Christian fascist lobby.

There is no viable choice in US electoral capitalist politics. Vote Republican, Green, Libertarian or Democrat and you have basically wasted a few hours of your life and nothing more.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Tekun+November 11, 2006 11:21 pm--> (Tekun @ November 11, 2006 11:21 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 10:48 pm
they are all that progressives have to lead to any significant change. No other political party or movement in the U.S. even has a sliver of a chance. They are the best hope for the people now.
Perhaps if they keep the american people dissatisfied with our government now that the people have ousted the GOP, it could bring on real change that manifests in the realization that neither party is much different, and that it is time to move beyond the current parties.
Best hope? :rolleyes:
When was the last time that the DP helped raise the wages of working men and women around the country? Or when did they make healthcare a universal right?
I doubt that this "hope" you're talking about trickles down to the Iraqi ppl in the form of true freedom

How bout...instead of relying on political parties, we rely on the workers themselves
Would that be a stretch? :rolleyes: [/b]
on Tuesday, there were measures to raise the minimum wage in six states, all of which passed. Many Democrats are pushing for it, and even some republicans, Bush is also beginning to support the push for it so it is very likely(last time this bill was voted on, republicans slipped in a measure to lower the estate tax :rolleyes: Dems aren't interested in that anymore). Now that they hold congress and senate, they will have the leverage to raise wages with no strings attached, that is at the top of their agenda providing bush doesn't veto the bill. However, many economists will argue that it will drive many smaller businesses to cut lower wage jobs altogether, putting many whom are most effected out of work.

As far as universal healthcare goes, progressive dems are pushing such as dennis kucinich, he is already drafting a house bill. This is way outside of their budget though, and since the dems want to stay in office they are going to avoid repealing the Bush tax cuts until after 08. so I wouldn't count on it yet, unless they manage to hold their gained seats and maybe even gain more in 08.


and about people calling me a "liberal bot", stop being so ultraleftist. You are all talk. This is reality and I don't see any rumblings of a revolution starting yet, so until then, I will continue supporting progressive reform because it is better than nothing. you can't just expect a dramatic shift right after the neocons have had such a tight grip on all aspects of the government for 12 years. It takes conditioning or else the revolution will just be another USSR.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 07:52 am
and about people calling me a "liberal bot", stop being so ultraleftist. You are all talk. This is reality and I don't see any rumblings of a revolution starting yet, so until then, I will continue supporting progressive reform because it is better than nothing. you can't just expect a dramatic shift right after the neocons have had such a tight grip on all aspects of the government for 12 years. It takes conditioning or else the revolution will just be another USSR.
I didn't call you a "liberal bot", if that's what you're referring to (me being the only poster in this thread to use the word 'bot').

I am referring to these so-called "activists" who post shit about whatever newfangled watchdog movement/government conspiracy-whatever denouncing Bush as a Hitlerite and urging us to vote liberal. They never reply to topics, and they never post anything outside of that brand of topic (usually in caps). The thread is typically ended with a large group of URLs to MySpace blogs, YouTube conspiracy videos, and other obscure "news" groups.

For one, liberals are not pro-working class and are not our friends. This is a leftist forum, and they have no place here.

Two, they're likely bots. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: Just for fun, I checked Maddog's only other post, and it was the same liberal conspiracy shit.


Bush has signed laws which give him dictatorial power and the authority to impose martial law on the american people

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17432

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Brekisonphilous
and about people calling me a "liberal bot", stop being so ultraleftist. You are all talk. This is reality and I don't see any rumblings of a revolution starting yet, so until then, I will continue supporting progressive reform because it is better than nothing.
Yeah, a revolution isn't imminent, but working within an inehrently oppressive system is NOT the way to work towards one! You have to work outside the system, because by working within it you're actually legitimising it.

As for being "all talk"- how would you know? There are heaps of active members- they're just not... you know, working in bourgeois governments or anything.

It sounds like your realism is actually reformism.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+November 12, 2006 03:00 pm--> (Mujer Libre @ November 12, 2006 03:00 pm)
Brekisonphilous
and about people calling me a "liberal bot", stop being so ultraleftist. You are all talk. This is reality and I don't see any rumblings of a revolution starting yet, so until then, I will continue supporting progressive reform because it is better than nothing.
Yeah, a revolution isn't imminent, but working within an inehrently oppressive system is NOT the way to work towards one! You have to work outside the system, because by working within it you're actually legitimising it.

As for being "all talk"- how would you know? There are heaps of active members- they're just not... you know, working in bourgeois governments or anything.

It sounds like your realism is actually reformism. [/b]
I wouldn't go as far to call myself a reformist, but I believe a healthy revolution needs to begin with heavy social and ecnomic reform. a mix of revolutionary politics with reformism, they work well together seeing as how reform will draw more people in to support a full revolution. At least, that is my take on it...

My apologies to Mr.Doom, I thought you were refering to me. I am by no means a liberal lol, I support the working class. If i didn't, I don't think I would be posting here.

[Nilats]

The PAB would like to fully endorse the trial of George W Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity. With the death penalty as an option.

[IronLion]

Originally posted by Severian+November 12, 2006 04:23 am--> (Severian @ November 12, 2006 04:23 am)
[email protected] 11, 2006 11:59 am
This just confirms that both parties are the same and that they are working together to oppress the american people.
If you realize that - why would you want the Democrats to impeach Bush? [/b]
Brilliant point!

[Tekun]

Originally posted by Brekisonphilous+November 12, 2006 07:52 am--> (Brekisonphilous @ November 12, 2006 07:52 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 11:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2006 10:48 pm
they are all that progressives have to lead to any significant change. No other political party or movement in the U.S. even has a sliver of a chance. They are the best hope for the people now.
Perhaps if they keep the american people dissatisfied with our government now that the people have ousted the GOP, it could bring on real change that manifests in the realization that neither party is much different, and that it is time to move beyond the current parties.
Best hope? :rolleyes:
When was the last time that the DP helped raise the wages of working men and women around the country? Or when did they make healthcare a universal right?
I doubt that this "hope" you're talking about trickles down to the Iraqi ppl in the form of true freedom

How bout...instead of relying on political parties, we rely on the workers themselves
Would that be a stretch? :rolleyes:
on Tuesday, there were measures to raise the minimum wage in six states, all of which passed. Many Democrats are pushing for it, and even some republicans, Bush is also beginning to support the push for it so it is very likely(last time this bill was voted on, republicans slipped in a measure to lower the estate tax :rolleyes: Dems aren't interested in that anymore). Now that they hold congress and senate, they will have the leverage to raise wages with no strings attached, that is at the top of their agenda providing bush doesn't veto the bill. However, many economists will argue that it will drive many smaller businesses to cut lower wage jobs altogether, putting many whom are most effected out of work.

As far as universal healthcare goes, progressive dems are pushing such as dennis kucinich, he is already drafting a house bill. This is way outside of their budget though, and since the dems want to stay in office they are going to avoid repealing the Bush tax cuts until after 08. so I wouldn't count on it yet, unless they manage to hold their gained seats and maybe even gain more in 08.

[/b]
Oh, what was I thinking, several measures that raise minimum wage were passed by the bourgeoisie, so therefore we're on our way to socialist revolution
Especially since Bush endorsed the measure, and all this time I thought they were against workers :rolleyes:

Hmm, maybe u haven't noticed that the cost of living is continuously rising, making any small rise in the minimum wage futile
Or like u said, the petty bourgeoisie are more likely to fire other workers due to these type of measures
Or maybe you've overlooked the disparity between the wages of workers and of their bosses, a rise in the minimum wage is chump change for those who own the means of production
How'bout the fact that their wages don't compensate for the amount of hard work they put in and the hrs lost working to increase the profits of the bourgeoisie
Should we focus instead on the impossibility of universal healthcare in the modern capitalist US?
Where could I start....how'bout I sum it up: the ruling class does not benefit from universal healthcare, and therefore this will never happen, unless the proletarian begins to rebel, and the bourgeoisie is forced to make some petty concessions


Im guessing that the "bot" comment isn't directed at me? Or am I wrong?


U do realize that almost all of us, socialists/communists/anarchists reject bourgeois politics? This is RevLeft, not LiberalDemocrats.com

Furthermore, I find this type of reformism hysterical, considering that it comes from an anarchist :lol:

[Brekisonphilous]

I'm not an anarchist-- just too lazy to change my avatar.

If you knew anything about economics at all, you would know that the U.S. market is moving away from manufacturing and more towards information technology. The fact of the matter is, the jobs held by the working class are easily replacable because almost anyone can do them after an orientation of the task. If wages are too high for a business to support, they will cut the jobs and just increase worker productivity or higher minority workers illegaly to take their place. Get with it. This is no longer the 20th century. The working class is shrinking, and they remain subservient to the changes that are taking place around them.

Well I will be restricted for this I am quite certain, which is idiotic because I still support revolutionary politics and this is the right thread to express my support for progressive reform, but I am afraid this message board may be a tad too radical for me. However, if the working class ever does wake up in America, I will support their revolution because as we all know, what is happening is incredibly fucked up.

:mellow:

[Tekun]

If you knew anything about economics at all, you would know that the U.S. market is moving away from manufacturing and more towards information technology. The fact of the matter is, the jobs held by the working class are easily replacable because almost anyone can do them after an orientation of the task. If wages are too high for a business to support, they will cut the jobs and just increase worker productivity or higher minority workers illegaly to take their place. Get with it. This is no longer the 20th century. The working class is shrinking, and they remain subservient to the changes that are taking place around them.


Umm, we were never talking about "economics" :wacko:
We were addressing the impossibility of universal healthcare and a raise in the minimum wage
And yes, I do know a lil about neoclassical economics, Im studying it at the Uni

Are you predicting that in the next 25yrs, all industrial jobs will be on foreign soil? Or is that a bit of a stretch?
Regardless of your hypotheses, which only a few I agree with, the working class is not shrinking its growing
Anyone that reads the paper, regardless of education, can see that
Its the "middle class" that is decreasing, due to the cost of living and the disparity in wages and household income compared to the upper class
In addition to the absence of more tech jobs, which are going overseas
Am I "getting with it?" :rolleyes:


Well I will be restricted for this I am quite certain, which is idiotic because I still support revolutionary politics and this is the right thread to express my support for progressive reform, but I am afraid this message board may be a tad too radical for me. However, if the working class ever does wake up in America, I will support their revolution because as we all know, what is happening is incredibly fucked up.

A tad?
Maybe if u learned a lil more and altered your views, you wouldn't see this board as too "radical"
We don't want progressive reform, we want to destroy they system and rebuild it around the working class
Reform only lulls ppl to sleep, it doesn't change things nor solve society's problems

With your reformist ideas, I doubt you'd support a popular uprising, but rather you'd see that as "a tad too radical" and in need of "progressive reform"

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:12 pm
If wages are too high for a business to support, they will cut the jobs and just increase worker productivity or higher minority workers illegaly to take their place.
No shit, Sherlock. Yes, under capitalism anything that makes business less profitable raises unemployment, mostly cause they move elsewhere. One response to this is to totally surrender to the bosses and do everything possible to make 'em move to your neck of the woods.

This is a lousy response. It's based on accepting a choice between starvation wages and no wages. It's better to fight back, even though under capitalism the results are bound to be limited.

Earlier you posted:

on Tuesday, there were measures to raise the minimum wage in six states, all of which passed. Many Democrats are pushing for it, and even some republicans,

Look, this is a phony game. Every few years the Democrats and Republicans have a big fight over raising the minimum wage a few cents. Lets the Democrats posture as pro-worker and the Republicans posture as pro-small business. But meanwhile the minimum wage keeps falling further and further behind inflation.

That'll change when people organize and fight back - independently of the bosses' parties. Anytime in history working people have gotten anything important, it's been in the streets.


personally I am more surprised at the huge tax cuts Reagan was allowed to make under a Democratic House but even so, to inflame the DP as enemies is improper.

What was surprising about that?


I think the tax cuts are what hurt the people most, and yet the people supported the tax cuts. I vote Democrat only because of the idea of raising taxes, which directs more money to schools and social services.

No, actually more tax revenue goes to the military. "Higher taxes" generally is not a progressive demand. Higher taxes on the rich, to pay for social programs benefitting working people is.

But the Democrats are not, in fact, for that. Often they don't even claim to be.


To say that the RP and DP are the same is to ignore that one over arching policy.

They're not the same - it's just that both are our enemies. They're good cop and bad cop, or nowadays bad cop and worse cop - sometimes switching places. Their differences are tactical, over how best to attack working people.

Even their differences help the ruling class against working people. If they were all the same, they couldn't keep working people tied into their system.

SPK is probably right that the Democrats' electoral victory will make things worse. Take a look at his list of what Clinton did. The bosses' partisan conflicts helped them attack working people. Clinton was able to roll more back than a Republican administration coulda.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:20 pm


This is a lousy response. It's based on accepting a choice between starvation wages and no wages. It's better to fight back, even though under capitalism the results are bound to be limited.

---


Are you predicting that in the next 25yrs, all industrial jobs will be on foreign soil? Or is that a bit of a stretch?
The beloved working class would disagree. As we can see in America, They prefer starvation wages compared to no wages. I think anyone would. Yet I am not seeing the resistance. why?

I'm not saying that will happen(hopefully the plans will be destroyed), but that is the current goal of this system. To move manufacturing over seas, and replace those jobs with information and technology. As a result of this, extremely high rates of structural unemployment will plague the U.S.