Removing yourself from the party rolls is a symbolic gesture

True, and one that will have no effect on policy. Your time would be better spent playing video games - at least you'd get some transitory enjoyment that way.

Send not one more dime to the DNC.

They've never received a penny from me. Not that they rely on me for funds either. Again, a meaningless gesture.

What has the Democratic Party done for you (or the country) lately?

Nothing. But that's because they don't work for me. They work for the wealthy, the corporations. And the Dems are doing yoemans's work for their real constituents.

Why wait to start clammoring for impeachment?

Why bother? It is wasted breath.

I'm sympathetic to your position, Jebbie. I'd love to see Obama impeached, civil liberties respected, and a government that responded to the will of the people.

But that is now a fantasy world, bearing no resemblance to the real world we actually live in. The US political system is so well insulated now against popular opinion, and so responsive to it's real constituents (corporations and the wealthy), that individuals just can't make much of a dent.

We can't even get a public option in a health care bill when the Dems control the executive branch and both houses of Congress.

The fact that the US is a nominal democracy makes the situation worse - allowing folks to go to the polls every couple of years blunts popular anger, and gives everyone a false sense of empowerment as we ratify the important decisions which have already been made for us.

It really is all over. Real problems are ignored in favor of obsessing over the narrow interests of the already rich and powerful tiny minority. And the country and the world will fall apart well before the rot can be excised and repaired.

is where we are heading.

We've got the war part down, seeing as we've been throwing our military might around for over a century. But the socialism bit is coming along too. The office of the presidency becomes ever more sacrosanct, and the media ever more reverential.

When the economy really starts to tank (you ain't seen nothin' yet, folks!), people are going to start screaming. At that point the guvmint will have little choice but to extend some help to people.

Hence, war socialism. Take at least minimal care of the displaced at home, and take other people's resoruces by force.

Of course not. Because we're us and they're them. We don't need no stinking inspections. We're sane and stable. We only invade and bomb people when we have a really really really really really good reason. Like when we suspect someone has something we don't want them to have or they say mean things about us. Iran hasn't invaded or bombed anyone because they're not sane. They are in fact insane because they haven't bombed or invaded anybody in 600 years. Invading and bombing people prospectively in "self-defense" is definitionally the mark of sanity. QED Iran is insane and should be bombed.

I suspect you're right, but I'd still like to see what Salty has to say.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, here's what I endorse:

1. A total inspection regime, including no-notice.

2. Continued and increased sanctions until (1) above is achieved.

3. Realistic threat of military action if we discover that Iran ever restarts down their prior path of weapons development - which is in itself a startlingly important fact about their motivations and intentions which you very casually dismiss as old news.

Do you endorse that stance for everyone? Even the good 'ole US of A and Israel?

Consider that a nuclear Iran could dictate a whole slew of terms, which, while you may or may not support could be detrimental to the US. A nuclear Iran can dictate when all Western troops leave Iraq and SW Asia. A nuclear Iran could pressure Russia out of the Caucuses.

Consider whether or not Zorkna has any detectable brain waves.

Give me a break. A nuclear Iran could not do any of those things. The US and Russia have nukes too. Does that mean the US can dictate that Iran stop supporting Hezbollah? Or that the US can stop Iranian support of Iraqi political parties? Or that the US can even stop Iranian Uranium enrichment?

Having nukes does not bestow unlimited power over others, and they especially do not bestow unlimited coercive power over other nuclear states.

I suppose it isn't fair to completely punt on your question of what my vision of a society without the rich might be.

I don't know what it would look like exactly - the question is just too huge to pin down.

Anyway, here is a link to get you started...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

This does not mean that I'm a full-fledged supporter of Albert and Participatory Economics. I'm a big agnostic about it - some things sound good, others the jury's still out. Point is, people are thinking about it, and I'm interested in what they have to say.

I do insist on income and wealth equality, and sustainability. I would not support any system that didn't meet those 2 goals.

I certainly hope some kind of alternative is viable, because if not, we're all screwed. The system we have now is simply not sustainable, and is leading us toward disaster.