Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: If you could buy a Senator, what would you pay him to do?

Posted 1 year ago on April 21, 2013, 7:33 p.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I would prefer that no one purchased our duly elected representatives. In fact, I would prefer that they were, indeed, duly elected. That has not always been the case. In at least one instance, a man ascended to the highest office of this land, by court appointment, and not by election.

Instead I would prefer they do their jobs. At this time it would seem incumbent upon our elected officials to take up the matter of impeachment.

Four individuals are, as all can plainly see by their own words, guilty, of high crimes, and as such, must be impeached.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), all insist we must deny one Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of his right, granted under the United States Constitution, of due process.

This is the abrogation of their sworn duty, and this is the sum and substance of High Crime.

The United States Congress must act, and do so swiftly. IF it cannot act, and remove from chambers these members who have so clearly turned their back upon their sworn duty, then it may be said that all of Congress has colluded in their crime, for indeed, all of these eminent ladies and gentlemen have sworn to uphold our United States Constitution.

[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

If we impeached everyone in congress who advocated unconstitutional actions,
congress would have no Rs
..............................................................................say that out loud

[-] 4 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

There would hardly be any Ds either.

Come to think of it, there would be only two people left in all of Congress; Dennis Kucinich (D), and Ron Paul (R). Now that would be interesting.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

FYI - neither is in congress

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Geez, that is correct.

I suppose neither of them were crooked enough.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

the key is not to complain that everyone takes money -
they CANNOT be elected if they dont
the answer is to make it ILLEGAL
see HJR 29 by Rick Nolan

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

we could perhaps loose everyone who voted for legislation approving either indefinite detention or enhanced interrogation in the wake of September 11, 2001.

IF we can remove these four from Congress, it will serve as a wakeup to legislators and curb the militarization of law enforcement.

Al Qaeda does not represent a sovereign nation, and has no capacity to wage war - no more so than organized criminals or drug cartels. Such groups can destabilize existing governments, undermine democracy and the rule of law, attack with weapons of mass destruction, but they cannot in fact wage war. They cannot wage war because they do not represent a sovereign nation.

They are criminals.

We cannot pursue criminals with tanks or with F-16s.

With an organization like al Qaeda it is imperative that we not wage war in an urban environment for that is to facilitate radicalization and so perpetuate this state of conflict without end.

We must instead pursue criminals of this nature with an implacable and relentless resolve, while at the same time presenting the not just the promise of an alternative, but its reality - we must invest those communities likely to sympathize in a general sense with the aspirations if not methodology employed by radical islam, in the prospect that respect and honor is possible, and this cannot be done with military oppression and rule.

To do that we must begin by returning to our own commitment, our own contract, with and among the American people.

These four individuals Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) clearly turned their backs on that contract, and must be impeached.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm thinking seriously of attempting a petition, for submission to one of the major sites with a large following. If we can get Congress to act now, and reaffirm their commitment to their oath, maybe we can actually end that stupid debate and even close Gitmo.

It may be a long shot - but the fact is we do not need Gitmo, and this quasi legal status is insane.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

Gitmo should be closed, as Obama & bush agree -
but the Rs in congress will not finance it

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Then perhaps they need a wakeup.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

Since it is unconstitutional to billit a soldier in a citizen's house

lets take one Gitmo prisoner and house him in the house of each congressman who refuses to fund a prison to house them

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Isn't there an empty supermax out in the upper midwest? kinda in the middle of nowhere?

They could easily hold trials nearby, I'm sure, and security will be much easier to provide in a suburban environment than an urban one - and if there is significant unemployment in the area, the locals will likely support it.




are you down with the movement to impeach?

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

ZD - you are a very poetic soul
I tilt to the pragmatic and prefer approaches that already have substantial support - I like the HJR29 approach to the 1% owning our government

I believe that many in congress deserve impeachment, but the House would have to do it, and they wont
WE can do it with elections

We have tried, convicted and imprisoned hundreds of terrorists - but the transfer & housing of the Gitmo prisoners requires congressional action to pay for it

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I am aware the movement to impeach may have less chance of passing the house than the background check bill did.

It is in a very real sense, a shot across the bow of Congress, and who knows, if enough people sign on, it may serve at some later date in an effort to articulate a long train of abuse . . .

This is art - to be sure.

it is the art of war . . .

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

as usual - very well said

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Thanks man. Here's the link:

What people do not understand is that it doesn't matter what your issue is, if everyone works together to put pressure on Congress on ONE issue, in a way that is embarrassing and chastening, we can make change happen. Then, IF we continue to work together to maintain pressure on other issues, and keep as an underlying theme throughout this process of pressure, one basic question:

  • Is our government engaged in legitimate and credible governance

I believe we can push them to legislate the way we want them to.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If nothing else it puts the assholes in office on notice that the people are beginning to come together in meaningful ways. Taking note of who is fucking with the Constitution taking note of who is fucking over the people and are beginning to start cohesive actions to remove them from office. It also goes towards inspiring the public to take action to get involved.

[-] -1 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Closing Gitmo is not the issue. Doing something with it's detainees is.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Like proving the case against them?

What odds would you put on that scenario?

Wouldn't all the details of torture be there for all to see?

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Yes. But whether they are caged in Cuba or Illinois will not help them be freed.

You think bringing them to a stateside prison will improve their chances of legal hearings or treatment?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Declaring them to be either war criminals, or political prisoners would be the start of the process, and that is why there's not gonna be any closure of that particular facility.

The tote for war crimes is adding up, and it's not a list that will ever go away.

[-] 0 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

I agree, but GITMO itself Is not the issue

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

They (the prisoners) would be moved to European holding cells, so yeah, If I was Obomney, I'd be closing it down.

[-] -1 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Whatever...a cell is a cell is a cell. Have a cup of coffee.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

One coffee at four am is my limit.

Five pm here, so it's close to dinner for me.

A cell is not what gitmo was (is) all about. It's a continuation of the mind-bending experimentation of the alphabet soup groups that was started in the fifties.

[+] -4 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

We'd also have a VACANCY sign flashing at 1600 Penn Ave

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

If I remember correctly Alwaki didn't receive due process either. Another victim of the repulicans... Oh that's right it was a democrat that murdered him. Maybe if people ignored the parties and focused on the crime this website would be more then the joke it currently is. Thankfully the occupy presense on the streets realizes this.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't really care about Alwaki - maybe I should. But I don't. He was just another goddamned conservative.

I say killemall . . .

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

And that is why we are losing our rights. They make us hate a person, group, etc. then strip away their rights and we don't care. Then they do the same thing with someone we care about and get away with it because their is a precedent in place.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that is a potential risk, yes. Doesn't change the fact that al Qaeda has engaged in the slaughter of Americans since at least the early 90s. They have demonstrated a pattern of commitment, and that is to killing, and I don't support their agenda. Plain and simple.

There are any number of conservatives in this country whom I feel more or less the same about, only their methods are just a bit different.

In my view, they are in fact more dangerous, because they are among us, and they have their hands on the levers of power - or some of those levers anyway.

In any case, I won't be crying over Alwaki. right or wrong.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

You don't have to feel sorry for him to understand where this could lead. Our rights are their for all of us, not just those deemed worthy. That doesn't even include the fact that we killed his16 yr old son also.

[-] 0 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Yeah, the CIA funded Al Quada turned to killing Americans after the Ruskies left Afganistan. We created this Frankenstein. In fact, WE created the whole Islamic Jihadist movement. We aided the Chechens too when they were killing Ruskies. How terrible when the dog bites the hand that feeds it.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Quote a reliable source that shows the US "aided the Chechens", rather than sitting back while Moscow did what it pleased.

[-] -1 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Builder, since I like ya, I googled Chechnya/CIA and had to page thru all the current nonsense....here's a Reuters article from 2009. You know gd well that the CIA has had their fingers in the Islamic Jihad pot since the 80's..


[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

That's the clandestine version of "what the US did". On the surface, meaning what was visible, the US sat back and did jack shite while the Russians mowed the Chechens down piecemeal. And that is more than likely enough reason to resent the gool ol' boys of the US of A.

[-] -1 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

And what would you have preferred? The US going to war with Russia over it? In a way we DID, since Islamic Jihadists have been our proxy fighters since the days of Reagan. We left the Chechnyans in the lurch, as we did Mubarak, Gadafi, and soon, the FSA,et al in Syria.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I think you're getting a bit confused here.

The US attacked Libya. The mercenary "rebel forces" are on the payroll, and are now in Syria.

[-] -1 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Right and they are also soon to be left in the lurch. Are you stoned tonite or what?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Cooking chicken soup for the folks.

Don't smoke pot, these days.

If they are "to be left in the lurch" like they supposedly were in Afghanistan, why do you think they're still on the payroll? Too radical to let loose, perhaps? Thousands of Stinger missiles unaccounted for?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

We created McVeigh too - and didn't seem to have much trouble ushering his lame ass to the death house.

I don't see you holding up the cause of Loughner. I don't see much practical difference. One gets trial by jury and the other not - sure, I get that.

But the various ways and means of radicalization goes on . . .

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

First they came.....

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I’ve always thought the best way to clean up politics is to never vote for incumbents. None of them. One term and you’re out. Maybe after a couple of election cycles we would find an incumbent worthy of a second term. Yea, it’s a long shot, but I never vote for incumbents.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

some people never vote for Democrats
some people never vote for Jews
some people never vote for Whites

all very well considered judgements
why think & reason when you can obey a rule

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

You're right. But my way has more potential to clean the rotton apples out of office.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

look at the history of voting against incumbents
it has very rarely worked
unless you count the TP beating conservative R incumbents

an example:
In November of 1998, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but six were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 98% success rate.
U.S. Senators seeking reelection were only slightly less fortunate--slightly less than 90% of the Senate incumbents who sought reelection in 1996 held on to their seats.

to obey your rule, would you vote against
Warren, Sanders, Clyburn, Lewis, Grayson, Defazio, Markey
Iit may be more work, but I prefer to think

If you have weeds in your garden, do you desroy the whole garden?

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I never vote for any incumbent. To use your analogy, the garden is all weeds and should be cleaned out. Yes, I even vote against the politicians I like after the first term. Besides, I’m a cynic, I don’t think we can vote away our problems.. Basically whoever has the most money wins. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

few people here will admit it but there is no economic system -
socialism - communism - anarchy -
that worked as well as CONTROLLED capitalism.
It worked very well under TR FDR Ike etc
Was it perfect? NO!
I do not believe any other system worked as well for a substantial period in any country

I never vote for or against any GROUP people - I vote for the best electable people for America
yes - that means that I would not write in Lincoln or vote for Nader

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

The US has had one of the highest living standards in the world for at least 100 years. I attribute that to capitalism. In the past 30 years or so capitalism has been turned on it’s head so the rich get richer, but that doesn’t mean we should change to some other type government. It just means we fix the current system.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

I agree - look at the economy under Ike, Lincoln, FDR ,TR


[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

And let's remember what they did to this one dude named 'bin Laden..... And then to have the audacity of sitting around a video monitor to watch the act..... So, much for innocent until proven guilty in a court ( at least Sadam got a mock trial.) And then the politicians have the gall to gloat about it during election time. Meanwhile half the American population is jumping up and down cheering it all on.

What sort of vulgar, psychotic society are we being turned into? For all practical purposes the U.S. Constitution, every international and domestic law, as well as every moral code of conduct has already been chucked away.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Did bin Laden not take pleasure in his confession? I thought he made some video . . .

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Sure, but civility is to still take a person to court before executing them.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

First such individuals must be apprehended, and apprehension is an endeavor not without risk. That risk must be assumed by both parties, not just one. I am not the least inclined to fault anyone over the way this turned out.

He was proud to take credit, he should rest easy knowing he has been held accountable.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Please, intruding in onto a foreign country's soil, going in and blowing away some elderly unarmed dude in his home in front of his family, while executives are watching the murder orgy live on a video monitor, taking the body away, dismembering it, and throwing out to sea. None of it was accident. All was planned. I don't see any moral conscience in any of that. It was the demented work of psychopaths pure and simple.

I am not a 'bin Laden lover, but damm.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I would say that when anyone is proud to take credit for the worst act of mass murder on U.S. soil since December 7, 1941, we can with confidence assure them, their families, in fact, the whole world, that Justice will be served.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

How is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev any different than 'bin Laden?

My proudest moment was when I saw the police apprehend him alive, and then after all he did still refer to him as "the suspect."

My saddest moment was when the Washington government came in treating him as other.

Retaliation is never justice.

There can never be justice without due process.

As long as we keep on acting like beasts, others will return the same.

Why do you think what happened in Boston happened?

And until we change its going to happen again and again.

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Jakar is no different. Our govt SAID they had proof, but they never shared it with us. I would still like a better explanation on why they filled that boat full of bullets when the kid was unarmed. And no one, MSM or alternative, even asks about it. In fact, is that kid locked in a small cell like PFC Manning? Who knows? The media repeated govt talking points and has moved on.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

You ask some very good questions. After the initial blurb, the story did go quiet real quick.....

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

Except for the news yesterday(?) or so that Jakar had scribbled a "manifesto" on the walls of that boat confirming his alleged confession. It took a month for someone to mention he had written something in that bullet-ridden boat?????

Oh, and I would guess the American people would be OUTRAGED if we truly knew the circumstances of Manning's captivity, what 2 or 3 yrs later? He must be out of his mind by now.

[-] -2 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 1 year ago

You know, I am not sure that he ever took responsibility for 9/11. We sometimes take our govt statements as fact.....have YOU seen the video of Jakar placing that Boston bomb? Everyone says there IS one.....

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13416) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

pretty clueless aren'tcha.

There were an awful lot of people involved in that investigation. Are you suggesting they were all either incompetent or they colluded in conspiracy? Because if that is what you are insisting then obviously - you need to put the coolaid down.

It's a lot easier to simply throw a harness over a single individual and lead them in the direction they want to go, than it is to throw a harness over hundreds or thousands of people and thus cause them to question everything they believe about themselves, their community, their nation, the meaning of freedom and justice . . . .

We've been working on the process for quite some time, and it is now in a state of maturity - and has been for well over a decade. We even have a name for these kinds of patsies . . . we call them . . .

  • manchurian candidates
[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

NRA is code for US weapons industry

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

and "CORP" is code for the USA

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5845) 1 year ago

Freedom isn't free. If people want politicians that will cater to their needs, they're going to have to pay for them. But before they can pay for them, they have to first demand them http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ . Without demand, there will be no supply of the public brand of politician leaving only the corporate brand of politician in the marketplace.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

demands MAY work
laws WILL work.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5845) 1 year ago

Demands WILL work.

Initiatives WILL work.

But non-initiative laws CAN'T work without the demand of elected lawmakers to write them.

So long as people refuse the demand for non-corporate lawmakers, the laws will always be written to benefit the corporations.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

I agree that demands, and initiatives will work
but not if we fail to un-elect the pro-1%

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5845) 1 year ago

Organizing to demand non-corporate politicians is the first step to replacing the pro-1%. People have to organize across party lines to present a list of agreed upon demands in the form of an affidavit for candidates to sign if they wish to be eligible to receive votes. The corporaticians (corporate politicians) will refuse to sign but any candidate to truly support the interests of the people will. If people refuse to give their votes to corporaticians, true politicians will arise to meet the demands of the people. The people simply have to be united across party lines in setting the standard of what will be acceptable for any candidate. That's the exercise of true democracy and no amount of billionaire money can ever take it away IF the people are willing to unite on common ground.

There will always be partisan voters who will vote for their party candidates no matter what but the majority of eligible voters are either independents or non-voters and can't be swayed by any partisan affiliations. If they were to simply be motivated to vote for non-corporatician candidates, the change would take place but the demand for such politicians has to first take place.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

NRA makes money on criminal gun use.


Merchants of Death

[-] 1 points by shooz (17824) 1 year ago

In the case of Rand Paul, I would have him stuff a sock in it.


It would make a nice and accurate photo op.


[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Id pay him to quit his job and let other people make thier own decisions.