I mean figuratively 'hunted down and shot'.

Why would a republican harm a 'democrat' enabling their wildest dreams...

History is full of examples of direct opposition sparking serious change. I would point to both the French and American revolutions as examples of extremely direct opposition that produced fundamental change.

France and the US are the most heavily effed up of all the western democracies, and I say that as an extremely patriotic liberal American (actually I'm also Canadian, and there's no more loyal American than a Canadian). France was mainly a dictatorship, albeit one that was tolerant of hedonism, throughout much of its post-revolution history. A few countries that are doing okay in Latin America are the products of initial violent revolution; lots of them were dictatorships for a long time as well.

No country has EVER done well by starting with a legal democratic structure, however corrupt or flawed, and having a "revolution" against it.

Stable, prosperous democracies mainly transitioned without violence. Even violent revolutions against real tyrants mainly produce subsequent tyrannies. France the US are weird exceptions, and it's worth noting that they were more or less the first major modern democracies, and are, as I noted above, the most effed up.

Fortunately, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of an "armed revolution" in the US, unless Bush and Cheney and their few remaining supporters in the military try to start one, so it's irrelevant.

There is some slight chance that Obama may be able to mitigate the inevitable catastrophe somewhat if elected. If McCain, or Hillary, none at all. Nader is no help and should be discounted.

I think the chance is better than slight. It doesn't matter if Obama is great. Right now we have one of the worst governments ever in the history of the world, relative to the standards of its time and place. Bush has all the faults of Putin, but none of his virtues, and a lot of extra faults to boot. Yet after thirty years of "conservative" crap and eight years of a guy who is popular in Hell (but nowhere else) for massively raising the reputations of Nero, Caligula, Bad King John, and Ivan the Terrible, we're still no worse off than Russia.

We may not need greatness. Just a bit of mild competence may put enough pressure on the brakes to give us time to avoid the cliff.

This is why I've decided to vote for John McCain for president.

I've looked at that scenario. It fails faster than almost any of them, and just as completely as the worst.

I can't trust Barack Obama. He's 'one of them' that has allowed this to happen.

I think you're blaming the victim. Hardly constructive.

Since Clinton, the Democrats have been really, really spooked by something. Whatever or whomever it is, they also got to Obama, and Pelosi and lots of others before him.

Here's the question:

What is that something?

I have my own considered speculation which seems reasonable to me. Got anything to volunteer along these lines?

I have no reply to your drama queen for McCain post except to ask, what's the deal with how you like to write, literally, 'democrat'? Is that supposed to be funny, cute, smartassey, in your facey, or what? What is it about doing that that gets you off?

Without hearing yours, I can't really comment except to say that since this congress is so far the wealthiest ever, perhaps they really don't want a 'real' maverick as much as the republicans.

See, I've had a hard time coming up with a reason that the 'opposition party' would be so hollow and spineless. Well, and so brazen and confident.

What Hoyer did is just mind-blowing. Not only did he lie but the entire thing was nothing but lies. And those weren't lies about who broke the vase in the lobby, they were outright bold and incredible lies, over and over again! It's also worth pointing out that the lies were effective.

Did they (the traitorous democrat politicians) decide that there was no use in fighting? Were they, as has been mentioned much earlier, afraid of their own complicity in the Bushist junta's crimes being made public (as if that would make a messy political scene anyway in today's docile and flaccid political environment.

What could make them so callous and callow. Do they know where Bush hid the evidence for planning 9/11? Well, in that case does burning down the country somehow make it worth keeping it secret?

I'm at a loss... I request more information. I have a very hard time seeing good in twenty car pileups and trusting traitors with the constitution in the shredder. Call me 'old-fashioned'...

If nothing else, we have three people on record here telling the truth: Which is that "The troops" includes many who are not only not admirable human beings, but some of them are the most dangerous and most horrid of human beings that the planet is currently populated with. -- Kitt

Agreed.

I am reminded of a slogan from the 60s that went something like, "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" The message I always got from that was that the leaders do not do the fighting, it is the soldiers. If no one signed up to "protect" their land then there would be no war. But oddly, the soldier/warrior/killer has always been lionized in all lands. (as far as I know)

As much as I hate the actions of one George Bush (either one), I must hate the actions of all those that followed the illegal orders. You know, Gitmo did not just happen on its own.

Well, I bid all a good day. I hope the damn administration does not blow up the world overnight.

Uh, I thought I made it somewhat clear.

'democrat' = DINO.

Sorry you missed it. Drama queen? Interesting.

Flame on, if you must...

I'm not 'getting off' on this. I know what's at stake. Believe me that I don't take this lightly and I'm not a 'Limbaugh troll' or GOP plant. I'm scared and pissed off and dammit I'm not going to settle for some GOP appeasing newbie that has already shown very questionable judgement in my opinion. We deserve better after the destruction of the Bush years and we aren't getting it...