> On Jun 13, 11:10 pm, skepticl1 aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On 10 Jun, 19:02, oldwifetale yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> No, it's *not* censored except in the msm. I hate to tell you this,
>>> but censorship in the msm has been going on for decades. The
>>> censorship is nothing new, it's just a little more blatant and 'in
>>> your face' than it used to be.

>

>>> I saw the information about Kucinich earlier today on several
>>> alternative news sites which are - (yes, believe it or not) - totally
>>> available to the general public or anyone who's willing to 'keep up'
>>> on who is doing *what* in politics.

>

>>> It was also on C-Span.

>

>> There has been inattention from most mainstream media on
>> Representative Kunicich's attempts at impeachment President Bush.

>
> What else is new?
>

>> There has been disparagement from pseudo progressive websites such as
>> 'Slate' and a complete absence of the Impeachment report from the
>> Democrat Party's liberal mascot 'MoveOn.org'. On line coverage was
>> advanced instead from such liberal sites as 'Rawstory' and 'After
>> Downing Street'. As of 5:00 PM today the articles had yet to been
>> published on Kucinich's official House website or on CSPAN, which
>> aired the presentation live but has thus far failed to provide an on
>> line archive of the historic moment. More over Kucinich's campaign
>> website, 'Kucinich.US' was disabled without correction by its provider
>> which claimed that it was currently unable to handle the requests due
>> to a temporary overload.

>
> Don't be so dependent on msm.
>
> It was passed to judiciary which basically makes the whole thing
> basically 'null and void' because by the time it would get to the
> point of being considered, Bush's term will have ended. So an
> impeachment process is too little, too late. At this point, it should
> be criminal charges which are never too late.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -