Hold your nose... Blue Dog Dems are stinkin' up the place!

[wowimthere]

With democrats like Buttkiss and Wideass and Landrover who needs Republicans to derail health care? These Dems do not want to see health care pass with a public option because their paychecks from the health care insurance agencies and big pharma will stop rolling in. The real Dems have let the crazies loose in the house and the senate. These Dems aren't working to change anything but the campaign checks in their pockets. Fortunately I come from a state in which the Dems are doing the right thing but anyone who wants to see these liars brought to their knees needs to threaten these dogs to extinction. Kick the bums out! Anyone who is talking ill of health care reform are on the payroll of big pharma... yes that includes the pollsters, the media, and the politicians on both sides. They are trying to kill healthcare... And Obama is not down in the polls. This is the scare tactic. Red states who employ blue dogs... if you don't like the smell they are giving off... get them the f*&K outta the room.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Hmm...smells like 1993 all over again. nt

[stray cat]

2. Lets have the constituents who are from conservative states elect radical GOPers

they won't be in the same room as dems and you won't have to smell them you just have to deal with their votes.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Some may not even care about being kicked out of government

They may plan on getting paid off by moving into jobs from those companies they support.

In that case it may require legal methods to enforce their duty as representatives of the people. Making accepting a job or speaking fees even if in the future as equivalent to bribery and defrauding the oath of public trust.

But I think that group is only a very few, since it requires a knowledge of wrong action.

Looking up some thoughts on Bribery, I found this article, maybe it is interesting. Since it requires a fee to read (or I could not figure out the linking in it) I could only read the first page, so guess people without money have to just wing it.

On the control of crime and Bribery. (wonder what it says)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724145

And since no governmental legal laws are in effect, since Bush set aside the system of laws and the constitution, since his anarchy is still the rules in effect. The next article was of interest.

Private Enforcement of Law
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724100

However I do not advocate the principle of moving justice into private hands, if a point occurs where social contract is not held up by public government, then such enforcement logically is in the hands of anyone that wishes to pursue it. But again I only could read first page, so again have to wing it.

So here is my thoughts on it.

Something about how some in government support rule by private groups, not public ones to run everything, makes me think that enforcement of justice could be done by any private group within their view of how society should be. If they believe everything should be private, and their view is that money defines power, because they think that money is most important, then any person that thinks anything is most important could use that as a claim to have the authority to be a private enforcer of justice.

If a guy thought, toothpicks were most important(I of coarse do not think toothpicks are most important) but if someone did, then if that person had the most tootpicks, then just like people that think money is most important, that person with the tooth picks would have the same unfettered claim to power as many with money currently claim, and would under the sytsem the people of money believe in, be able to enforce justice within the same rules set up by people that think money is most important.

So anyone that thinks what they have is most important, by the rules of those that follow money, that person has the same claim to power as people with money, and by extention the rights to enact justice in any form that person sees fit. Leading to many forms of private justice to fill the void left by the turning of government into anarchy by Bush.

Interesting concept.

[RandomThoughts]

4. This is really interesting.

If the guy that thinks money is most important got 1000 people that also thought money was most important to do something.

And the guy with the toothpicks got 10 people to do something because those 10 people thought the toothpicks were most important.

Then they would both have the same legal right to do what they wanted based on the idea of private being more important then government.

Because by the own policies of money first people, democracy or what the most people agree to does not matter, so even though only 11 people thought the toothpicks mattered, they would have the exact same claim to enforce justice as the money people have based on the rules the people that like the money system use.

[masuki bance]

5. Bingeing is not healthy. Get some rest. nt

[RandomThoughts]

6. Its just logical, it makes complete sense if that perspective is applied back to them.

I am well rested.

If you think about it it makes complete sense, again if you live in their view, which would make sense to apply to them. It is not my perspective because I believe in democracy, and that most people are more good then bad, so transparency and democracy will lead to better and better societies.

[RandomThoughts]

7. And also a quote from Ricky Ticky Tavi I have posted before.

It was a temptation to eat the whole banana, but ricky remembered what his mother had taught him, a full meal makes a slow mongoose. And if he wanted all his strength and quickness ready, he must keep himself thin.

So I agree bingeing is bad and avoid it.