Posted by: Jim | June 13, 2008

This Is Not My Representational Government

Here’s what the American people want, according to an MS-NBC survey:

This survey is only a few days old. Even if this is WAY off, the articles of impeachment should not be languishing in the House Judiciary Committee. Our representatives are not reflecting the will of the people who elected them.

Why? Because they know how ornery Republicans can be when it comes to impeachment, and they are afraid of a little quid pro quo.

In the meantime, pork is creeping its way back into congressional earmarks, even though they promised to curb their use last year.

I think our increasingly mis-named “representatives” have forgotten what happens when a populace suffers from taxation without representation. The sad thing is, the people who once threw the King’s tea into the harbor are these days too amused with Brittney and the Lakers to know that they are being anally raped by the people they’ve elected.

Our Government’s appetite will not be sated, and the people will remain amused until they’re not amused anymore. God help us when that happens.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Again, Jim, what would an impeachment (in the unlikely case congress has time to out it together in an election year) achieve, exactly? Impeachment does not automatically include expulsion from office, and even if it did, you want Cheney in there? It is a pure waste of time, energy, breath, and all other important things we don’t have excess of.

    Every time you bring this up until the vein in your forehead pops, I giggle, and pray (yeah, pray) that you are near an emergency room.

    Lefties whine and moan if they don’t get their way, even when an expected change is coming. GIVE IT A REST. The ESPN.com poll carries more weight than MSNBC, especially during football season. That shows you where America’s priorities are.

  2. Todd asks, “… what would an impeachment … achieve, exactly?”

    I should have expected this question from you. But I’m happy to answer:

    1. It will show the world that when we elect a complete fuckhead who plunders our wealth, spends it all on a complete waste of war, who treats the Constitution like it’s the corn husks around a tamale that he wants to devour, who lets a city drown, politicizes our judicial system, who spies on us without warrants, who lowers our taxes when we’re going broke–that MOST of us Americans WISE UP and DO SOMETHING about it.
    2. It will show Americans that we’re not a battered wife who stands by her tyrannical husband because she’s too insecure to dump him.
    3. It will teach future presidents that if the Office of the President of the United States is not a job that you can take lightly, and use as a means to make all your friends rich. And that even though it’s the most powerful position in the world, you are still not so big that you can’t be smacked down.
    4. It will place in the history books that even though Bush was the most popular president in history (9/12/01), he squandered his popularity and became the LEAST popular president in history, and was tried for his crimes.
    5. It will create justice. People should not be able to commit High Crimes without being held accountable. If there is no justice, there will be no peace.

  3. “Lefties whine and moan if they don’t get their way”

    Three words, Todd:

    Roe vs Wade

    Trying to characterise people as “whiners” etc by their ideology is your recurring ‘debate tactic’. It’s wrong and it’s old.

    This week Rethuglicans are whining about the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution of the United States.

    Go figure.

  4. I’m not sure why you brought up RvW, but that is a great example of unelected officials, Supreme Court Justices in this case, overstepping their bounds.

    Depending on your political views, in America, the 10th Amendment is just about the most important thing written in the Bill of Rights.

    The Supreme Court clearly erred when they handed down their decision on Row v. Wade, as this should be a 10th Amendment issue, just like medical pot and concealed weapons, for example.

    Yeah, you would get a hodgepodge of laws (as in gay marriage, firearms, medical marijuana, etc.) if this was overturned, with some states banning abortion completely, and others that would allow full-term children to be killed at birth. So be it. I don’t like it, but that is the way it should be.

    I have a few proposals though, that might help.

    Single mothers that are on welfare are given free birth control pills, IUD’s, Depro, or hysterectomies subsidized by a tax on booze. State-subsidized daycare will be available and funded by a tax on diapers, formula, wipes, baby food, etc.

    Once this program is enacted, after two years, a single mother who is on welfare that has another child that they can’t afford is no longer eligible for any further benefits. Ever.

    Yeah this is harsh, but there is a point where compassion becomes a destructive force. Think about it.

    P.S. And don’t rant on about a woman’s right to “chose.” Choose what? Just say that you are pro-abortion. Using language like like “pro-choice” or “the right to choose” is just political Newspeak.

    -T

  5. Venj, nobody’s ‘pro-abortion’. I agree with you that all the veiled jargon on BOTH sides glosses over the real issues (the only phrase more obtuse than ‘pro-life’ is ‘pro-choice’), but give me a break: nobody except a deranged freak is lusting after fetuses to kill.

    ‘Pro-Lifers’ are obsessed with interfering in other people’s life decisions because they believe they are saving innocent lives, even if that life is basically the equivalent of bacteria on a bit of dandruff. They don’t seem to care much once the kid is actually BORN, since they usually aren’t in favor of funding education or helping out with food, shelter, or medical care — but whatever. If the kid grows up poor and miserable and thus gets himself into enough trouble, we’ll just lock him up and/or kill him. Yeah, that’s ‘Pro-Life’ alright.

    ‘Pro-Choice’ folks are generally operating on the Libertarian principle that it’s not up to a centralized government to be meddling with people’s bodies and deciding what they can or cannot do with them. Do some people use this position to act irresponsibly? Sure they do — just as some people will pretty much act irresponsibly about everything.

    But the key argument here is one that should not be underemphasized: neither camp thinks killing someone is a good or moral thing; it’s just that they differ on what constitutes ‘someone’. It’s the same issue as the whole stem-cell research debacle; on the one side you have people who believe, based on science, that a person is not a person until a certain point in its development; that most ‘abortions’ are miscarriages performed by nature itself because the fetus is not yet a sustainable lifeform, just like skin cells on your pillow. On the other side you have people who, almost always due to religious beliefs, insist that the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, it has a soul and is therefore a full human being and not merely a rapidly dividing stew of chemicals called a cell. This ‘soul’ of course, is tainted with ‘original sin’ and all that claptrap, but it is still a soul and they want to save it. I would admire them for this, if it wasn’t so goddamned stupid in a real-world setting, and if they weren’t so damn nasty to the poor scared women who are rarely happy to be having to deal with the whole thing. But then again, they SINNED, right? They had SEX, and so they must PAY. Thus saith the Lord.

    You will never bridge this gap, and you cannot legislate this sort of moral argument because until the Christian God appears in all His glory and elucidates the mysterious and mythical process of soul transference, it will remain an impossible and unknowable distinction. And since I and many others do not believe in this ‘God’ thing, it is not for the government to force an answer to what will be an eternal question.

    * * *

  6. I DO agree with you on the whole welfare/population control thing, however.

    But a better option, in MY opinion, is instead of punishing women who are already stuck in a situation that they did not — ahem — get into by themselves, let’s go after the easier culprits. I say ‘easier’ because vasectomies are cheap and supposedly almost painless, and thus I propose a mass program of FREE vasectomies, and every man who gets one receives a year’s supply of Coors and Red Man chewing tobacco for free as well.

    OK, they can also choose Malt Liquor and a few ounces of Chronic if they prefer. Yeah, go ahead and call me a racist. Y’all know what I’m sayin’. Da projects and da trailer park iz basically da same thing.

    Anyway, implement this plan and in twenty years, most of the problems in this country will just go away by themselves.

    * * *

  7. It’s 2008. It’s amazing that there even has to be a discussion like this.

    BTW, when does the new season of “Ow! My Balls!” start?

  8. Idiocracy! I love that movie!

  9. Actually ‘Ow! My Balls!’ is already on the air. It’s called The News.

    * * *


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: