Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
It is clear that neither party is committed to upholding the provisions of the constitution defining our rights we have clearly, for 208 years, not ceded to government authority.
Why is it then, that it is not obvious that a discussion of the appropriatness, and the probable pitfalls, of taking to arms, for the purpose of protecting our bill of rights, ourselves, is not now timely or appropriate?
In chronological order, a diary of ultimatums, postponements, excuses, and finally, accountability is "off the table", in the interests of "bi-partisanship":
|
Host....I believe
the bills I posted earlier as a result of numerous oversight hearings that were lacking for the first 6 years of Bush demonstrated an attempt by the Democrats to rectify some of the abuses of the Bush administration and provide for greater transparency and accountability. The Democrats have had only one year to correct six years of abuses.
These were not done as posturing or political gamesmanship, but I agree its not enough.
But Bush cannot be impeached for lying at press conferences...or for acts of subordinates..or without hard evidence (that has been destroyed by subordinates). Further, with the present numbers, Democrats have no control over Republican obstructionists in Congress who are unwilling to address the abuses of the last 6 years...and in any case, I just dont believe armed insurrection is the answer.
Women protested peacefully and lobbied aggressively to gain basic constitutional right in the 20s.....the labor movement did not take up arms to protect and expand workers rights in the 40s...African-Americans did not resort to violence to gain civil rights in the 60s.
They all "worked" the system and the system worked for them. Today, most Americans appear too apathetic to do even that much...forget an armed march on Washington.