Notice an increase in Anti-Dem posts since WMDLieGate started?

I wonder why that is.

Today I read one that made me wonder if I needed a tin-foil hat. Someone with 1000+ posts attacked a Democratic Candidate and I wondered if they had been biding their time here until Shrub was in danger--and now they would go after one Dem in the name of another.

By "liberal dems who just want info" :eyes:

I have trouble with Clinton because........" Uh huh...we don't hear that one often enough. No sirree.

because I think we should admit that Clinton, while brilliant and totally charismatic, was not the Second Coming. It annoys me to no end, even as a loyal, money-donating, candidate-supporting, voter-registering Democrat, to see people sieg heiling after Clinton and Gore as if they were angels. They weren't angels; they were imperfect human-beings and faillible politicians. Just because Clinton was a maestro at what he did, at selling whatever he needed to sell, doesn't make what he sold all that beautiful.

My view is that if we refuse to examine and own up to the unsavory things that happened underneath him, then we are little better than the freepers who refuse to look at the unsavory things Bush is doing (shudder to even mention the 2 in the same sentence!). Accusations are going to start flying across BOTH sides of the aisle now that "WMDLieGate" is exploding. How are we going to react? By mimicking the Republicans and saying "it's all lies"? We already KNOW their dealings were much more immoral, greedy, and criminal than ours so why should we be so unwilling to own up to face our own truth?

I'll give you one example. I hope everyone knows how outraged I am over Iraq- the lies and the deception and how much I hate Bush and enabling Co for it but I am also outraged over the 8 years of debilitating sanctions Clinton imposed on Iraq, as well as the daily bombings and the US/UK refusal to allow Iraw to import anti-cancer treatments because they contained "trace amounts of radio-isotopes, on the grounds that these constitute '...nuclear materials..' "

My activism started long before Bush ever took office and I've spent years dealing with articles and pictures such as the following which I think EVERYBODY should look at to remember that none of our hands are clean. http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

On top of this 5000 children died PER MONTH as a result of our sanctions and the Clinton admin had the nerve to say that this was worth it. Kosovo and Serbia are just as disturbing.

I was also very involved in the entire Haiti thing and know what kind of ugly back-room deals were made under Clinton, as under any administration. So forgive me for my willingness to examine him as critically as I do any politician but my loyalty is to humanity- not to any one party. It just so happens, that for now, the Democratic Party is the one I belong to and support but that won't make me turn a blind eye to the ugliness.

Hope this makes sense. I hope people can understand that not everyone willing to discuss Clinton's failings is a disloyal Dem or a disruptor. I'm aiming for a better world regardless of the administration in charge. None of us are angels. We're all out to support that capitalistic machinery at the expense of the rest of the world and we do some ugly things to get there.

Before I duck for cover, let me say Peace.

Tinoire, ANYONE can tell the difference between earnest criticisms like yours, and the faux ones. Heck...I'm still peeved at Clinton and Gore for not letting BCCI get a FULL airing. I understand their reason being the economic stability throughout the world was at stake BUT, damn, I wish it had been hammered on back then.

I basically agree with Sgr2, there has been a distinct increase in anti-Clinton posts but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents and have a 'for the record' post that not everyone criticizing him is a disruptor.

Now one of these days, you're going to have to explain to me why you support Kerry. I am preparing myself for the eventuality that DK
is a little too revolutionary to make it. I think he can definitely get the people's vote but they'll find a way to stop him because he's too... too... "aw c'mon Dennis, play ball wontcha!"

I don't want to hijack Sgr2's thread so I'll start a thread in GD asking Kerry supporters to weigh in and tell me why they like him.

Peace

All that said, Clinton is still my hero and I think that little strumpet Monica had excellent taste! Great men, great accomplishments, great libidos and this all throughout history. :)

to Tinoire, I can distinguish the two.
To BLM, thanks for summing it up! ;-)

I'm with you!

But I must point out that Clinton did not impose sanctions against Iraq- the UN did, at Poppy Bush's urging. While we may have disagreed with those sanctions, I would rather have a President who will actually follow international law rather than making decisions unilaterally.

he should be eligible now since there has been an intervening "administration". Maybe he will actually be liberal this time. He will need protection and he will need to stop agreeing with the rightwing about illegal wars and bombing, etc.

Appeatantly she is still undecided.

they can't handle it that their beloved liar-in-chief is getting hammered in the press FINALLY, and it is just too much for them to attempt a reasonable argument b/c they know they will lose. I have noticed a huge increase in 1-10 post freeping, although there have other strange posts from posters with higher counts. You'll get yours soon enough freeps, less than 16 months now.

16 months is far to long to wait.
GET THE FUQ OUT OF OUR WHITEHOUSE MR. RESIDENT!!!!!!!

Nevermind that DU is pumping like CheezWhiz through a straw, it's vitally important that we know that Nobody is Fooling sgr2.

It seems like the employees of certain candidates are getting all upset when you point out their candidates background, friends, and family connections.

It looks like only Lieberman is allowed to be bashed consistently. Is he our official scapegoat?

"point out the candidates background, friends, and family connections" without claiming that somebody not being poor means that they are AGAINST the poor or not being black that they are AGAINST blacks? Can you?

Thank you.

nope

the employees of certain candidates are getting all upset when you point out their candidates background, friends, and family connections

...as if anyone is getting upset for only that. Can you show who, where?

Are you being purposefully deceptive?

"It seems like the employees of certain candidates are getting all upset when you point out their candidates background, friends, and family connections."

This was in response to the comment about this being a witch-hunting thread, and I was chiming in.

That's my impression. Don't like my opinion? If you disagree, fine.

Are you being purposefully deceptive?

So "It seems like" makes it NOT a claim? Oh, spin some more... :eyes:

It's this simple: you say that

"the employees of certain candidates are getting all upset when you point out their candidates background, friends, and family connections"

but you can't show when and where anyone, employee or not, got upset only because of that as you pretend. That's not just an impression or opinion: it's a fact.

In your post about Kerry you put forth the idea that Kerry and Bush hatched some big plan back at Yale (in the mid-60's) concerning the 2004 election. Unless you have some evidence, this statement sounds nuts.

As far as money, just because someone has money does not always mean they are bastards. I must admit, the percentage of rich who either screw those without such income or do not really understand what we are experiencing is high, but you should still provide evidence. Show it in his voting record or public statements; do not just say he's rich so he is scum.

Finally, it is best to offer an alternative. If you support a certain candidate, tell us why (again, with evidence). People here are willing to listen.

Where did I say any such thing?

"In your post about Kerry you put forth the idea that Kerry and Bush hatched some big plan back at Yale (in the mid-60's) concerning the 2004 election. Unless you have some evidence, this statement sounds nuts."

YOU said that, I said nothing even remotely close to that. Either post where I said that, or retract it.

"In your post about Kerry you put forth the idea that Kerry and Bush hatched some big plan back at Yale (in the mid-60's) concerning the 2004 election. Unless you have some evidence, this statement sounds nuts."

YOU said that, I said nothing even remotely close to that. Either post where I said that, or retract it.

If you're not saying that Kerry and Bush hatched some big plan back at Yale concerning the 2004 election, what are you saying that they hatched?

If that isn't what you are talking about then why post that in response to him?

/sarcasm

I think it's against the rules to accuse another DUer of lying. I have to say I'm sick of words being put in my mouth in the last few days.

Everyone bashes Lieberman, and I bash the other candidates I don't like. It's still a free country isn't it? I support DU, I donated money, I have my star. I'm a Democrat and I want one of my Democrats to win.

If you want to post where I said ANY SUCH THING, go right ahead.

...are those posts by a FEW IN OUR OWN MIDST that go something like "on such and such a thread you said this and that", or "on such and such a date you indicated this and that about such and such". Sometimes the accuser even provides the link to the thread in question showing the victims comments. Now, what the crap is with all that???

Who appointed these people score keeper anyway?? Freepers do what they do out of ignorance and willfull stupidity. Here at DU there is enough information at any given second to keep a body busy without worrying about an occasional contradictory comment by a fellow poster.

Are some in our midst trying to do a left wing version of the "thought police"? Better be careful there I'm not sure Asscroft amd Ridge will appreciate the competition???

So what if someone's comments contradict from time to time, what is the big deal, isn't that what the learning process all about??

As for me, I've got enough to do just to keep track of little old me than to be worrying about what someone else said on such and such a day, or in such and such a thread.

I for one have said a lot of stuff on thread that I wouldn't say again because I have often changed my mind about an issue because of things I've learned. I am often dismayed at how this seems to sometimes be a place to debate someting to death with no room for compromise or change.

....learning what is really going on in this country. I obviously still don't know everything and so the potential of contradicting myself again in the future is very very high.

I agree and I know to whom you are referring. I find it quite condescending...

Hey I'm not a politician, just a regular person and I admit I change my mind!

....to ANY AND ALL who carry on this practice.

....fair people around??

O8)

we should be consistent. there are people here who have gotten to know each other, argue all the time, know each others positions. we have an obligation to raise the level of discussion and being consistent is one of the ways we do that. if i'm not being consistent i consider it fair to be called on it.

here and in other places. I think the inconsistency means I'm still alive and have an open mind.

and being enlightened.

....been appointed to make that determination. That is my point. The "thought police" routine.

And I guess I should learn to use the Ignore feature, but I'm afraid I'll miss something!

...malady, "...afraid I'll miss something!" Thanks for the chuckle!!!!!

......"inconsistency means I'm still alive and have a open mind."