|
19 Jan 08 - 12:50 AM (#2239814) Subject: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: freightdawg Since Kucinich seems to be the burr under the Dems saddle these days I thought the following news was interesting. It seems the Democratic party of the state of Texas demands a loyalty oath of all of its primary candidates that they will "fully support" the eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed the line out when he filled out his paperwork, and the Dems refused to put him on the ballot. He sued, claiming the loyalty oath violated his right to free speech. A judge has just ruled in the state's favor, allowing them to print the ballots without Kucinich's name on it. The judge stated that the party could make and enforce whatever rules it wanted to. Kucinich apparently plans to appeal the decision. Hey, I'm startin to like this fella. Anybody that can spit in a Texan's eye ain't all bad. (as FD runs terrified away from the Mrs. FD, a loyal Texas native) This came from MSN's homepage with a link to MSNBC. I'm sorry I don't do blickies very well or I would do the proper links. Maybe a Mudelf can save me. Freightdawg. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 01:35 AM (#2239822) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Interesting. You have to watch out for people who demand a loyalty oath, I think. I know that such a loyalty oath was formally required of all Germans, for instance, between 1933 and 1945. In that case it was a loyalty oath swearing one's personal loyalty to "the leader", and that's apparently what the Texas Democratic Party appears to want also. I'm not surprised Kucinich crossed that line out, because he's not about to be anybody's puppet. He believes in freedom of conscience. Loyalty is something that has to arise naturally and spontaneously in people (like respect). If it doesn't, it's not real. No one can guarantee such respect and loyalty with an oath, but an oath can be used by a power structure to later bring legal pressure down on anyone who was pressured into giving that oath at the time...thus making such an oath is simply giving away your own future right to use your own free will responsibly. That's unwise. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 04:05 AM (#2239854) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: GUEST,Texas Guest Hey, folks, it's Texas - what do you expect? I mean, hey, we gave you Bush AND Tom Delay - what a deal, huh? I still say that the democrat ticket should be Edwards & Kucinich - wouldn't that drive the republicans and big business crazy for a few years?! I just wish ole' Molly was still around to write about it though. Cheers. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:48 AM (#2239941) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Bobert Brownshirts... |
|
19 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM (#2239984) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: katlaughing They also gave us Molly and Ann Richards and Jordan (well, she was a transplant)...so we know they can do BETTER! Good for Kucinich!! |
|
19 Jan 08 - 10:29 AM (#2239994) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Riginslinger So that tells the American voter that they can only vote for candidates that the monied interests want them to vote for. Our system is beginning to look a lot like Russia's. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM (#2240093) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Richard Bridge I would suggest that the refusal to accept nominations except upon those terms might well be what in EU law would be called "an abuse of dominant position" or a "restraint of trade". |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:06 PM (#2240122) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Bee-dubya-ell The title of this thread is VERY misleading. It gives the impression that Kucinich has filed suit against the state of Texas. Please reread the article. The loyalty oath has NOTHING to do with the government of the state of Texas. It is a requirement of the state's Democratic Party, not the state itself. A political party is NOT part of the government and, as such, is free to make whatever rules it wants as long as it doesn't violate any state or US laws. If they want to require that all candidates wear cowboy hats while campaigning in the state, they can do so. Also, please note that the loyalty oath says nothing about the US Constitution or any US laws. It refers specifically to support of the PARTY's eventual nominee. It's all about PARTY loyalty, not loyalty to any ideal. Having said all that, I agree that the requirement is bullshit and reeks of old-style party politics. (Wait! You mean there's a new-style party politics?) I just don't want anyone confused over the bullshit's source. I would be embarrassed to be a Texas Democrat, but I'm a Florida Democrat and I'm pretty embarrassed to be one of those as well. At least Texans' primary votes will count for something. I may as well stay home.* *(FYI, the Florida Legislature, with support of the Florida Democratic Party, voted to hold its primary much earlier than in previous years, very much against the wishes of the national Democratic Party. As a result, candidates are banned from campaigning in Florida and the Florida delegation to the National Convention will have NO votes. At least that's where I think it stands now. It's probably going to all turn out to be a big game of political Chicken. Wonderful system, ain't it?) |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:12 PM (#2240124) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Understood, Bee-Dubya-Ell... |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM (#2240127) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Peace What is most interesting about this, IMO, is how scared the Dems are of Kucinich. Why has no other candidate spoken out on his behalf? |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM (#2240128) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: WFDU - Ron Olesko did anyone save the receipt? Can we return Texas to Mexico?? |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:35 PM (#2240141) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: freightdawg Good point, Bee-dubya-ell - my apologies for the poor choice of title. I should never type that late at night I have really mixed emotions about this, as Bee also mentioned. I firmly believe that any organization, duly formed, has the right to make its own rules, and anyone that wants to join has to abide by those rules. But... Here we have a state party telling an individual that they must support the eventual nominee. They are not just telling everyone in the state party of Texas they must support the eventual nominee (although that might be true) but they are telling an outsider to the state party that the individual must abide by state party rules. My question is why do this? It is just plain bullying. As much a defender as I am of the rights of organizations to make and enforce the rules by which they operate (however unseemly they may be to an outsider), provided they violate no state, local or federal laws, I have to support Kucinich on this one. Whatever happened to, "Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it." (or words to that effect) (And about the title to this thread - any Mudelf help to clarify it??) with a red muzzle, Freightdawg |
|
19 Jan 08 - 06:24 PM (#2240231) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC The Democratic party is a joke. It's completely outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had any (same for the Republican party). Time to abolish political parties and go back to the way they did it in the time of George Washington. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM (#2240233) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Hear, hear!!! Both those damn parties should be dismantled and thrown on the trash heap forever. And no other damned parties to replace them either. Vote for individuals instead, and base your vote on the character, ability, and stated policies of the specific individual(s) you decide to vote for. Until the USA is freed from the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties...and of other parties as well...there is never going to be an honest democracy in the USA. Politicians should not be beholden to any party power structure. They should be free to act as individuals, free of control by entrenched party interests. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM (#2240238) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: akenaton Fuckin' anarchists!! |
|
19 Jan 08 - 06:52 PM (#2240246) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC Egalitarians ;-) |
|
19 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM (#2240247) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Peace Egalitarian anarchists. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 07:13 PM (#2240259) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk There's moral anarchy. And then there's social and political anarchy. A society free of political parties is in a much better position to avoid moral anarchy than is a society in thrall to them... Political and social anarchy is avoided simply by having a coherent sytem of just and fair laws in place, laws which have been worked out in a legislature, and by having the means to enforce them. That can all be achieved entirely without political parties, and it has been achieved in a great many past societies. Political parties are an arbitrary and relatively recent phenomenon in human political affairs...and their primary concern soon becomes to perpetuate and enlarge their own hold on power, not to work for democracy or justice or the common good. The present ruling party structures would like us all to think that society cannot do without them. They lie bigtime. People (including those IN the party machines) believe that lie only because they are so accustomed to it. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM (#2240302) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Bee-dubya-ell "No damned cat. Mo damned cradle." |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM (#2240305) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Bee-dubya-ell Dammit! Steal one of the best lines in American writing and fuck it up with a typo! "No damned cat. No damned cradle." |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:33 PM (#2240321) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Stringsinger I remember loyalty oaths from the time of McCarthy. Loyalty oaths are a "clear and present danger". Hang in there, Dennis. It's a good fight for all of us. Frank |
|
19 Jan 08 - 09:10 PM (#2240336) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: GUEST,pattyClink For the record, Barbara Jordan was a native Texan. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 03:59 AM (#2240418) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Richard Bridge Is a native Texan necessarily a native AMerican or what? |
|
20 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM (#2240601) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos ANymore it is, yes, strictly speaking. But the term NAtive American (capital N) has been preempted to describe members of what used to be called the American Indian tribes. And before Texas' assumption into the union, a native Texan was either a citizen of the Republic of Texas or of Mexico, mostly. A |
|
20 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM (#2240658) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Richard Bridge That was my question. Now I don't understand the answer. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 01:03 PM (#2240662) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos Richard: in normal English under current conditions because Texas is part of the U.S., a native Texan by definition is natively an American (a citizen of the US). However, the term "Native American" got borrowed by the politically correct to apply to those who lived in the land which is now the U.S. before the United States existed. These "Native Americans" ar ewhat used to be called Indians. Their descendants of the various tribes are referred to as Native American by birth. Texas was originally part of Mexico, and for a brief period became its own Republic before joining the US. All clear? |
|
20 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM (#2240724) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Q (Frank Staplin) To a Texan, a native Texan is one who was born there. Most of the 'Native Americans' I know still call themselves Indians (or use their 'nation' name). Tribal leaders seem to tend toward 'Native American' for political reasons. There are many American Indian associations, but also some Native American Indian Assns. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM (#2240765) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: DougR Personally, I think all Democrats should vote for Kucinich. DougR |
|
20 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM (#2240772) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos You are evil, Mister R. :) A |
|
20 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM (#2240794) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk And I think all Republicans should vote for Huckabee. ;-) |
|
20 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM (#2240798) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos Oh, a fine kettle of fish you two would wish on us!! A |
|
20 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM (#2240801) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC All Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and everyone else should vote for Kucinich. ;-P |
|
20 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM (#2240802) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos Now you're talking. But I am not sure in which of many worlds!! :D A |
|
20 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM (#2240826) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Q (Frank Staplin) Who is Kuccinch? |
|
20 Jan 08 - 06:02 PM (#2240866) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Surely you jest! |
|
20 Jan 08 - 07:00 PM (#2240892) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC He's probably joking, but I would never pass up an opportunity to post this link... Kucinich |
|
20 Jan 08 - 09:37 PM (#2240961) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Q (Frank Staplin) Yeah,I did it to get a rise. Kucinich adds spice, but will never make it to the big top. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 09:41 PM (#2240964) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Riginslinger Eugene V. Debbs never made it to the big top either, but everybody was quick to adopt his ideas after the big top collapses in 1929. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM (#2240970) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC I see a distinct possibility that after four years of whoever gets elected this time around, most folks will be begging Dennis to be president next time. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 08:10 AM (#2241185) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Riginslinger I don't know. I'm still walking around in a daze after George W. Bush got elected to a second term in 2004. Of course, there's always Ohio, but... |
|
21 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM (#2241318) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk I think there was voting fraud in 2 key states in the 2004 election...Ohio and Florida. I don't think Bush won that election. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM (#2241411) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Richard Bridge Never underestimate the stupidity of teh electorate. Look how often the British re-elected Thatcher, which was grossly like turkeys voting for Xmas. I simply could not believe that there was no insurrection. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM (#2241445) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Never underestimate the power of an incumbent government to dispense propaganda and control the agenda either... |
|
21 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM (#2241511) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: DougR I assume, LH, you are referring only to the Canadian government! DougR |
|
21 Jan 08 - 05:42 PM (#2241605) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk I am referring to ALL elected governments, Doug. ;-) Without exception. Being an incumbent affords great monetary and bureaucratic and procedural advantages in winning an election...and it makes it easier to manipulate the outcome. However, ANY incumbent regime can wear out its welcome eventually...as we've all seen...when they finally reach the point where a clear majority of the public is truly fed up with them. And they all do reach that point eventually. Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. ;-D In the USA that translates to: When people are completely fed up with the Republicans, they vote in the Democrats. When they are completely fed up with the Democrats, they vote in the Republicans. When they are completely fed up with BOTH sets of rascals, they hold their noses, vote grimly for what they hope is the lesser of two evils, and pray that things won't get worse. It works almost exactly the same way in Canada, Doug, only we alternate back and forth between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party (both of whom are quite "liberal" by your standards!)...and we have the fun of also having a third party (NDP - Socialist) which gets about 15 to 20% of the vote every time, thus acting as a handy secondary influence and caution on the other two. I like our way a tad better. I would just about be in despair if I had no other vaible alternative but the Democrats and the Republicans to choose between. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM (#2241672) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Q (Frank Staplin) Litte Hawk, the Parti Quebecois is the secondary influence; the NDP is still around but tertiary in influence. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM (#2241682) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk You have a point. But I wanted to keep it fairly simple so as not to totally confuse DougR. (and I am not suggesting when I say that that DougR is a dummy, by the way....but he's probably not too familiar with Canadian politics) |
|
21 Jan 08 - 08:05 PM (#2241701) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Amos Just like most Canadians.... A |
|
21 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM (#2241752) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Say what??? Where did that come from, Amos? And why? |
|
22 Jan 08 - 10:45 AM (#2241983) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: GUEST Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against Kuscinich |
|
22 Jan 08 - 10:58 AM (#2241994) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Peace It amazes me that America finally gets someone who's willing to 'tell it like it is' (or, equally, tell it the way he sees it) and the MACHINE just keeps goin' out of its way to ensure he doesn't get elected. Has it struck y'all that just maybe your democracy is in deeper peril than it ever has been before? |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:02 PM (#2242047) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Riginslinger The MACHINE is going out of its way to make sure he doesn't even get heard. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM (#2242070) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Here is the latest message from the Kucinich campaign: Now Is the Time to Do the Right Thing Dear Friend: I am not in tonight's Presidential debate in South Carolina because, over the weekend, the Federal Communications Commission supported the arbitrary and deliberately exclusionary criteria imposed by CNN and its parent company, Time Warner, Inc., to keep me out. And, because that FCC decision came so late, there was absolutely no time to appeal or to challenge their denial of Americans' right to hear from the one and only candidate who is willing to demand ... Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. No war with Iran. A national, not-for profit health care system. Repeal of the Patriot Act and a restoration of civil liberties. The cancellation of NAFTA and the rebuilding of the U.S. auto, steel, aerospace, shipping, and manufacturing industries. Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy policies. But, it's not too late to fight for what we believe, and that's why I am asking for your help. (Click here to donate). The Democratic Party has out-sourced your right to a full and fair debate to private, multi-billion dollar media conglomerates whose interests do not represent mainstream America. Their interests are best served by manipulating the political process to achieve their own ends, promote their favored candidates, and profit from the rewards of their power and control. To challenge those powers and defend your rights, we are running up extraordinary legal expenses. We need your help to sustain those efforts so that everyday Americans can believe in their rights and have faith in their strength to stand up against the political and corporate powers that are ignoring us at the same time they are trying to dominate us. With your help, we can change this system. We can demand reforms, fight for justice, and re-write the unfair laws and the discriminatory regulations to make this a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Please contribute whatever you can, and ask your friends to do the same, because the cost of doing nothing is far greater than the price of doing the right thing. Before it's too late, now is the time to do the right thing. Thank you Dennis |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:33 PM (#2242074) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC What democracy? |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM (#2242076) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC Hey, LH, check this out. This was one of the people with us yesterday at the debate in South Carolina. I think this was very effective. And it got us a lot of media attention... http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/724/gallery/322333-a322732-t3.html |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:50 PM (#2242087) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Very good, Carol. It makes me sick to see what is going on in the USA with suppression of alternative views in politics. It has become a controlled society under a privileged and unaccountable oligarchy, one that imprisons people without due process of law, one that tortures people in extra-legal facilities, one that launches wars of aggression based on outright lies, and one that arranges phony, meaningless national elections in which all the officially sanctioned candidates who get national coverage are servants OF the oligarchy. We've seen that kind of thing before, and we've seen where it leads. It leads to a de facto dictatorship and a police state...and it leads to greater wars not far down the road...wars which will not end until the oligarchy itself is broken. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM (#2242096) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Peace The suppression of views has been working its way into the 'average business day' ever since Bush became President. Between him and Cheney and the crew, people don't have any views left, 'cept those the boys want them to have. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 10:33 PM (#2242549) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Riginslinger There has to be an answer to all of this, right? |
|
23 Jan 08 - 12:03 AM (#2242569) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Little Hawk Time eventually provides an answer for everything, including the most corrupt of political regimes. |
|
23 Jan 08 - 01:21 AM (#2242578) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: CarolC My own feeling is the answer is people getting involved, like the folks at Black Box Voting. Check out this thread and what these people are doing to try to clean up the election process in New Hampshire. I find it very inspiring, myself... http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71456.html?1201055989 |
|
24 Jan 08 - 05:00 PM (#2243940) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Wesley S He's expected to drop out of the race soon. Story here |
|
24 Jan 08 - 05:08 PM (#2243949) Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas From: Peace Good idea on his part. 1) He had NO chance to become President--he'd never have got by his own party. 2) He better try to hold onto his present seat. |