It just confounds me how some people can expect one, two or even three election cycles to produce sudden shifts or changes. But perhaps I am missing something and Glenn is secretly advocating that we should "abolish this govenment" like macgupta suggested in the previous thread.

How do you amend a gummint?-- L.W.M.

Just like Jefferson said. It's not rocket science. He, and others, told us what we would need to do from time to time. You might want to hike up your Depends and consider it.

It all comes down to the belief that we have time. You seem to believe we have unlimited or, at the very least, significant time to "incrementally" change things. One of my questions is why should it take much time at all? I know it isn't all his doing but it only took BushCo 7 years and counting to get us into the worst place we have been in at least 35 years (or perhaps even since the depression). Why should we, the owners of our government, take several election cycles to put it right? Do we have the time? Is it too late already? Perhaps we of the younger generation don't feel the need to wait for your "more and better democrats" to become the corporate whores they will become in 5, 10 or 20 years just so we can listen to another LWM of the future exclaim: "I just don't get it!? How can they expect change yet?? We just need to elect a few more and better democrats! They'll see.. they'll see..."

LWM... you know I really, really, really dislike you correct? My guess is that Jefferson wouldn't care for you very much either. I personally believe you don't really want significant change. I think bucky1 has you pretty much pegged. I have no way of knowing, but it has been said that you are long in the tooth. I am just curious but, how much longer do you figure to be around for the party?

You amend constitutions. -- L.W.M.

Wow. Well that certainly clears everything up. Yeah... you get right on that. Add it to your list of letter writing and general begging. But, what happens when you get it amended just like you want it and they ignore it, or just flat out piss on it, like they do to the already well established amendments? You see the problem here? I am guessing you don't actually.

Oh and Jefferson meant what exactly when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"??

Let me guess, he actually meant, "More and better Democrats! Incremental change! Whooo hooo!"

I swear you and yours subscribe to the Underpants Gnomes three-phase business plan:

1. Elect more and better Democrats!

2. ?

3. Nirvana!

I am wondering, if we attack Iran, will the rest of the world have finally had enough and begin to undermine and attack us in whatever ways are available to them? For instance, will the Chinese call in their some of their markers?Does anyone know or have any good references on speculation as to what the rest of the world would do once it is beyond plain that we are a rogue state? I am seriously asking because, like most Americans, I do not have a good handle on where we actually stand other than being the known bully that everyone despises. My guess would be that, regardless of whether the idiotic American public thinks we are somehow justified in attacking Iran, that the rest of the world isn't going to buy the BushCo warmongering this time around, and may see it as in their best interests to attempt to do us in. Anyone else think that might happen?

This is where I diverge with Ron Paul supporters. I respect his anti-police state stance and his fervent belief in individual liberty but, like any conservative, his economic policies are just plain nutso. Libertarian economic "philosophy" would have us looking like Somalia in a few short years. Ron Paul supporters really should realize by now that, if they are honest in relating his (their) economic policies, they will never attract anyone with an ounce of empathy or compassion to their cause. I know it bugs them, because they are so sure they are right, but it is what it is.

That is why impeachment, even at this late date, even if there is no trial possible, is a kind of "hygiene" and a statement of what is permitted in a democracy. The President is not to be a king or dictator but someone who uses his or her powers to further the American enterprise and protect its citizens from the over-reaching of power. -- midnight04

Yeah, none of this stuff really matters until we hold an executive to account for their illegality. Impeachment should be the only thing being discussed. It should dominate the national discourse. Everything else is just hacking at the leaves.

McCain isn't worried. He feels very comfortable in spouting this nonsense because, if he wins and even if things don't go totally his way, he knows that he can say and/or try anything without fear of repercussions. We have yet to hold any of them to account. Nixon and Ford (Watergate), Reagan and Bush1 (Iran-Contra), Bush2 (every single thing he does). Until we do hold them accountable by impeachment, indictment, and imprisonment, we will continue to suffer. It may not happen with Obama but it will happen again.

Some people are just fine with that.. they say/think they aren't but if Obama is elected and is just the least bit better than these criminals, people will soon forget and the process will begin all over again. Count on it.