C-Span Right znow - Callers so full of hate can barely talk

The question is "Is the Democratic Party an angry party". They have so many pubs calling in to tell how awful liberals are that they literally have trouble speaking - such hate for us Dem's or anything else is scary

Just like any pigeon who's been grifted and then repeatedly beaten for three years. What's the repug's excuse?

Most rethugs have never seen angry democrats and they fear it. Stay angry, and we will run this plague on America back to Texas.

How about "Is the Democratic party angry with a CEO pResident who is whoring himself to big corporations?"

then you got that repuke thug Frank Luntz on at 6 AM to continue the theme.

- It's a leading question that suggests Dems are ANGRY for no reason. "An angry party"?

- It's a stupid question asked by what has become a conservative CSPAN.

is so offensive, I turned it off. Why watch something like that which just furthers the Repugs "Talking Points."

I'm watching C-Span's Morning Journal less and less lately. Why bother starting one's day with "propaganda" and calers who seem to be pretty hysterical and uninformed. Occasionally one of our DU'ers or another "rational" person gets a call in, but the rest are so ill-informed it's painful to hear.

Does anyone hear the subtle R twist on the question in their responses? They have constantly converted "anger" to "hate". This will be a mantra for the next election cycle if not confronted. Good lord, don't those sorry suckers remember the unfettered rage they unleashed in the 1990's?

just their policies...

:evilgrin:

democratic party this year. It was discussed in a memo from Ed Gillespie and sent to republican politicians, strategists, pundits and grass roots supporters and activists a few weeks ago. The RNC has instructed these people to refer to the democratic party in letters to the editor and telephone calls to talk shows as an angry party of people filled with hate. This image of the democratic party will be used to stress that the democratic party is a negative party while the republican party is a positive party. This likely will be very successful since the democratic party decided long ago that it had no objection to allowing the republican party to define the democratic party.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from the first bush and reagan admin -- people who committed treason. please read your history.
bush knew about 9-11 --- how calm are people supposed to be?

- There's a big difference. RWingers searched for years to 'get' something on Clinton. Having failed to find a legitimate charge against him...they used sexual McCarthyism as a means to bring impeachment.

- I'm sick and tired of RWingers of accusing me of 'hating' Bush* when it should be clear to everyone with a couple working brain cells that he's the most corrupt president in this nation's history.

- Do Republicans really think we're just going to let this pass and not see Bush* made accountable?

I'm getting the strong feeling there are many GOOPers who are stuck in their own hypocrisies...best described here as those "beyond help". We could make a large list of these ranging from "Big Spenders" (whose putting that defecit into hyperspace?), "Small Goverment" (Homeland Security...nuff said) and so on...

To keep the focus away from the corruption and hypocrisy, the Rove machine has cooked up "Bush Hate" as the one thread that can keep the GOOP hive together. What were various "hates" in the past...Clinton Hate, Religious Zealots, Military nuts and so are, now are galvinized around the mantra of "Bush Hate" as an attack on their specific cause...and it's been working.

I'm not surprised it's Steve Skully doing this question...he's one of the most Conservative hosts (almost always on the weekends) who is known to let the Wingnuts (especially the anti-semites) go on and on.

But then, I keep saying that we need to hear these people to realize how determined this regime is to deceive and preserve its power...and to bring this to light to as many moderate and reasonable Republicans as possible. Right now, they're our real only hope.

They're upset because we are not behaving like the stereotype they manufactured about us. We're supposed to be weak, bunny-hugging sprout-sucking sissies. We're supposed to be afraid. We're supposed to be intimidated. We're supposed to have given up, to be totally bereft of ideals and ideas. We're supposed to be ridiculous and irrelevant. We're supposed to be dazzled by their might and their "adult" understanding of issues. We're supposed to quake in fear as their SUVs and monster trucks mow us down on our bicycles. We're supposed to hate our country. We're not supposed to fight.

Boy -- are they ever wrong. It has been *they* who has forced this polarization upon our nation, and hell YES we ARE going to fight for our country, even if they force us into civil war, which seems to be their intent.

It's got to be kind of embarassing that His Chimperial Highness has bungled as badly as he has. You really have to wonder about just HOW nuts people can be, that our country could be lead by these bastards into the state it is in -- hated by the rest of the world, and extremely vulnerable and unstable -- and that anyone could hate a fellow citizen so much as to claim this mess is really a miracle of some kind, and that as mean as things have gotten, that these are good times, and this is what America is all about.

It's got to hurt for them to hear the things they have done and what they believe in called by their real names -- like "lies, Pharisees, corruption, fascism, unConstitutional, extremist, mean-spirited, failed, undemocratic, aggressive, imperialistic, immoral, fanatical, plundering, etc".

Additionally, the extremists that hijacked the Republican are profoundly authoritarian in nature. They simply do not comprehend that anyone could not utterly surrender to their absolutist notions, and the chimpanzee that they have built a cult of personality upon. They live in a Manichean world of simple opposites, primitive ideas. Thinking troubles them, so they surrender themselves to certainties. Their mindset is the psychological equivalent of a wheelchair.

People criticizing Bush is "out of control." ?

I'd really like to see examples of how the democrats have let their "hatered" of bush get out of control:

Have Democratic senators implied that Bush would be less than safe if they were to visit that bastion of liberalism, the northeast?

Have democrats funded the building of an anti-bush library in order to smear the reputation and accomplishments of Bush?

Oh, wait, those were republicans and Clinton respectively...

Add your own! It's fun!

Getting rid of the "calm" Simon Crean was the best thing to happen to Australian politics. The Labor opposition dumped him for Mark Latham, who is once divorced, broke a cab driver's arm and described John Howard as George Bush's "arse licker". And as of today, the Labor party is leading Howard's government in the polls. We don't like wimps.

If Tom Daschle had stood up on the Senate floor and broken Trent Lott's nose for questioning his patriotism, there would barely be a poll in America that would have the republicans ahead now.

Being angry doesn't resonate with the populace? Hah!!!

lies and jingoistic propaganda about democrats. Every republican who lies needs to be challenged immediately and proven to be a liar. Republicans count on the fact that they can lie repeatedly about democrats and never be called a liar.

yeah, baby!

I know that's not PI, but, gee, isn't being PI a BAD thing the way pugs use it to defend their most heinous actions, means of expression, etc?

GET OVER IT, you fricking HYPOcrites!

time to fight fahr with fahr!

just do it on the house/senate floor; then you can get away with it

and try it on Santorum

hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

this was the number THREE item when I googled santorum!!!!!!!!

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

OK, four....one of them was a subheading

go to jail for battery against a U.S. Senator, because of something Lott said?

That's what you want, a macho, violent fool for Dem leader?

What Daschle did was correct to SPEAK in his defense, and I would bet that is the reason you know about what Lott said. If it wasn't because Daschle called attention to it, and characterized it as questioning his patirotism, how did you know about it, and how did you come to characterize it the same way Daschle did?

...I would have signed and sent in a hundred dollar check to the DNC...everytime I watched the playback on tape...

And Bush's standard practice of threatening free press by sending his bushbots after them is not attractive.

"The hatred has spun out of control. Read some of the theories in these forums sometime."

Yeah you'll have to look hard to find liberal hate - hardly "spun out of control"

"Instead of beat Bush it has become get Bush."

Whoa, big difference; obvious sign of hate.

"Angry messages do not resonate with the populace."

Hence the success of the Republican party, with half the voters listening to hate radio all day.

Given the fact that Repub callers could hardly speak because of their anger, i'd say this issue is settled.

The hatred has spun out of control. Read some of the theories in these forums sometime. Instead of beat Bush it has become get Bush. Angry messages do not resonate with the populace.

I think you are probably not reading all the messages in these forums. Admittedly, angry messages do get attention.

Here's a little experiment for you. Choose any thread on this board with ten or more responses posted and tally how many of those responses contain simply hate or "get Bush" (or Ashcroft or Rove or etc.) kinds of content and how many contain content discussing the pros and cons of the subject line or seeking information about the subject.

Then hop on over to the Free Republic board and choose any thread there with ten or more responses posted. Tally how many of those responses contain simply hate or name calling directed against Democrats, progressives, and Democratic or progressive points of view.

I think you will find at least three or four times the numbers of what you call hate messages, or "get the Clintons" (or Daschle or Byrd or Kennedy or etc.), and far fewer messages discussing the pros and cons of Conservative points of view.

In fact, if you are familiar with the way the FR board is monitored, anyone such as yourself who comes onto their board and questions conservative views or tactics (as you seem to be challenging progressive ones) is "banned" from participation after only a very few posts, and labeled "liberal,socialist, communist." You have already posted more than ten messages here, which indicates to me that freedom of expression (a very American value!) is honored here more so than among the Freepers.

"ANGRY PEOPLE VOTE"

You make the mistake of automatically equating Anger with "Hate". That seems immature and shows a lack of understanding of human dynamics. I can be angry at my daughter or my girlfriend, but does that imply that I must "hate" them?

Of COURSE not! but, then...

We have the biggest deficit since Ronny Ray-gun, our military is spread thinner than peanut butter in an average Murkan household, and our young men are dieing for oil and fat contracts for others at the rate of almost 2 a day, and many, many more indignities. Tell, just what is there NOT to hate about Bush? The Rethugs (and you) always bring up the legendary ClintonPenis as their justification for hating Bill.

What is worse? Getting your helmet polished or killing thousands of people and throwing the country into insolvency?

Damn right I'm angry!

the blue dress.

People are dying for Bush's lies and manipulation. clinton's lies and manipulation got us a blue dress that needed dry-cleaning. We have every reason to be angry.

I haven't seen a DUer "lose control" over this, which is, BTW, a non-issue. I agree with the poster upthread who says this has been created to give the GOP traction in '04.

Never mind that there was a cottage industry truly hating Clinton in the '90s spawning books, TV channels, radio shows, etc. :eyes:

It won't hurt a bit! They are destroying our country, we have no international support and we have murdered thousands for nothing...you aren't a tad miffed?

Flip one for me too Big Dog.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There has been an infestation of freepers who visit and make a few inflammatory posts and then disappear. Your flag avatar also contributes to the general impression.

You jump pretty often.

Holy Shit she picked the FLAG avatar, case closed mentality.

Is it really part of your freep detection toolkit? That's pretty fucking embarrassing.

People get called out as freepers now for using a flag? That is embarrassing.

...but it would be nice if you would stop repeating RWing talking points. If you don't realize this is what you're doing...then you need to do a bit more research on the issues.

- As to Bush* 'knowing' in advance about 9-11...it's a proven fact. Even the Republican chair of the 9-11 commission stated that it could and should have been prevented. It's not outside rational thought...it's outside what Bush* wants the American people to know. I wouldn't vote for a Dem who wasn't concerned about this issue.

- Did Clinton commit perjury? Or did the Republicans use sex against him to get him to deny an affair? It's indeed strange that such a lie is even important in the context of Bush's* lies that kill people and destroy nations.

- You seem to be confusing 'vision' with the duty to bring criminals to justice and putting an end to government corruption. The only 'vision' Bush* has is to rule this country like a dictator while he enriches his friends and family.

- I frankly don't care if you're a FReeper. The 'anger' you see on this board is in response to the BLATANT corruption, lies and malfeasance of the Bush* administration. If you're not angry you're not paying attention to what matters to the future of this country.

I read the actual transcrip from the Diane Rehm show and also listened to it on her webpage. He said that the 9/11 Commission should not be blocked by Bush, that Bush should cooperate because conspiracy theories like that will abound unless the truth is looked into. Charles Krauthammer lied about what Dean said and that is how the right-wing lies about it started.

Bush has fought the investigation tooth and nail, he wants to keep it all secret. The families want the truth to come out and so do many of us.

You are confusing people asking legitimate questions with "spewing venom." i take your word for what you say you believe, but it sounds to me like you are listening to and believing major media and right-wing spinning points.

I hope the Democratic party gets angrier and demands the truth in the tradition of Harry Truman. We are tired of the lies and corruption of Bush. Look at his actions from the 2000 election to the present. Do you think he and his people really believe in the democratic system and open, honest government? They need to be fought. We can not lay down and let them do what they are doing! It is against everything our founding fathers believed in!

and welcome to DU :hi:

We get a little defensive sometime as we have been invaded by newbees who happen to be freepers.

On the point of the conspiracy theory though, let me point you to some sources on the 911 facts that might persuade you.

Please get ahold of a copy of "Forbidden Truth" by Brisard and Dasquie.

It is a very thoughtful book.

Also you can check out

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312306210/002-1962454-5524037?v=glance

Again, welcome and try to "grow a thick skin" but keep your mind open!

I dislike Bush's policies as much as the next person, but to openly and brazenly level such charges as the murder of three thousand people or even beingt complicit in the tragedy is way outside the realm of rational thought.

Let's wait for the report from the group that's investigating 9/11. In all honesty, my mother believed to her dying day that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor but he wanted to draw the U.S. into the war to, as she put it, pull Churchill's chestnuts out of the fire. She was a staunch Republican, but that was back forty plus years ago. There are still some people discussing that possibility today, however, and they are otherwise pretty rational.

I hate to say it, but Clinton did perjure himself. He committed felony. Should he have been impeached?

I think impeachment should be reserved for those actions that pose a threat to the safety of the country or those that threaten its orderly workings. Nixon threatened the orderly workings of the nation by his illegal maneuverings to be re-elected. To the extent that Bush was responsible for purging the Florida voting records of names of people who were not felons (including the name of an election commissioner in one of the Florida counties, I believe it was), he should be impeached for those actions. Clinton did absolutely nothing to deliberately undermine the safety of this nation or its orderly proceedings.

America is an optomistic country. Would Clinton have won the White House and platform of anger and hatred?

I doubt if you even recall much that Clinton said or did before he was actually nominated. The primary campaign memory will fade fast once the actual presidential campaign begins. Let's wait and see what platform and message the Democratic candidate puts out then.

I am not a freeper

OK. Understand that most of us are ABB... Anybody But Bush... because we believe that Bush has led the nation backwards, away from all the good progress that has been made over the past century. We, our parents, and our grandparents have worked to promote justice, prosperity and peace and we are indeed angry at anyone who dares to take away our heritage from us. Righteous anger is appropriate. Being fed up, frustrated, and generally disgusted from time to time is sort of human though.

I have been wondering if these type of posters are trained by the Repub party to disrupt? They may not be freepers. Just doing their job. Doing a lot of posts saying I agree, but . . . Then we get the Repub propaganda as you have pointed out.

I find them obvious and infuriating

rumsfeld for example goes back to iran/contra -- a treasonous act if there ever was one -- and he didn't lie about sex.
powell lied about my lai and to the united nations about iraqs wmd's -- not something stupid like consensual sex.
rice lied about Md's as did the rest of bushco and how many more innocent people died for those lies.

could so easily toss off Democrat's natural and patriotic curiosity about the causes of 9/11 as mere "conspiracy theories." The Bush administration won't even allow a fair and independent investigation (unless you think not giving evidence until it's been edited beyond recognition is fair and independent.) What is an intelligent, involved American citizen do except speculate, when the facts are withheld by the responsible party?

Cowpie is full of GOP talking points he/she has swallowed whole.

First:
Our leading presidential nominee is openly subscribing to the conspiracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11. Take a look at the 9/11 threads sometime on this website. Why are major pundits out there spewing venom at the current administration? I dislike Bush's policies as much as the next person, but to openly and brazenly level such charges as the murder of three thousand people or even being complicit in the tragedy is way outside the realm of rational thought.

For one so fond of rational thought you seem to have only listened to the Faux News on the issue. I asked Governor Dean the question about a complete investigation into 9/11 and he talked about some of the theories that are floating around due to the lack of cooperation from the WH. In case you were unaware of this quirk of human nature, secrecy tends to spark folks imaginations. Usually the imagination comes up with much wilder things than the truth actually is. This is the point Dean was making.

Secondly:
I hate to say it, but Clinton did perjure himself. He committed felony. Should he have been impeached? I don't know. I loved him as President, but he did have his character flaws. That being said, I would vote for him again tomorrow and would even be an intern. ;)

Frankly I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for lying about a blow job but you being unsure of whether he should have or not is interesting. Of course I find it all the more interesting you seem relatively unconcerned about all the lies the current misAdminstration has told us, including regarding 9/11.

Thirdly:
America is an optomistic country. Would Clinton have won the White House and platform of anger and hatred? No. He ran on a platform of optimism and solutions to problems. Look what Reagan did in 1980 and 1984. Clinton and Reagan both ran on a can do platform. Roosevelt ran a positive campaign in the darkest hours of our nation's history. Guys like Clinton, Reagan and Roosevelt reached the pinnacle of American politics because they put forth a vision. A positive and clear idea of where they could take our country.

For one so fond of rational thought the difference between anger and hatred seems to elude you. See, the big bang of the Republican Revolution was built on hate. We saw what happened there. Of course the fear mongering (thank you 9/11) helped their elections in 2002, as did our hand-wringing, play-it-safe Dems.

In light of your claims I find your arguments and reasoning weak. Extremely so.

Finally:
I am not a freeper, I think they are as annoying a group that has ever existed. I think it is very petty that those that disagree with me would attempt to discredit my by calling me a name rather than actual discussion.

No name calling here but as far as discussion goes, I urge you to become more informed.

Julie

"I did not realize this was a tow the line only forum. Gosh I better prostrate myself before the gods and beg forgiveness. Better yet, how about a little blunt honesty."

"Blunt honesty"? You're about to get what you asked for...it's not our problem if you can't deal with it.

"First:
Our leading presidential nominee is openly subscribing to the conspiracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11. Take a look at the 9/11 threads sometime on this website. Why are major pundits out there spewing venom at the current administration? I dislike Bush's policies as much as the next person, but to openly and brazenly level such charges as the murder of three thousand people or even beingt complicit in the tragedy is way outside the realm of rational thought."

Oh, please. What "major pundits" are spewing venom at the current "administration"? Name one. Additionally, prior to seizing full control of the White House, the NeoCon Junta was fully briefed on the terrorist threat by the Clinton Administration. That briefing included the potential use of airliners as weapons. You also need to explain the 30-40 minute delay by the FAA in notifying NORAD that airliners had been hijacked on Septenber 11, 2001, and then you should explain why NORAD chose the bases farthest from the action from which to launch a total of four interceptors. Maybe you'll also want to explain the 8-mile trail of debris leading to the impact site of Flight 93? Perhaps you'll also take a shot at explaining why Junior continued to read a book to 2nd graders for another 30 minutes AFTER he had been informed of the 2nd plane's impact on the WTC? You may also want to explain how six of the so-called hijackers managed to attend U. S. military schools. And how come the NeoCon Junta is refusing to cooperate with the 911 Commission, and how come Condi doesn't want to testify under oath before that same commission?

"Secondly:
I hate to say it, but Clinton did perjure himself. He committed felony. Should he have been impeached? I don't know. I loved him as President, but he did have his character flaws. That being said, I would vote for him again tomorrow and would even be an intern. ;)"

What did Clinton's personal life have to do with his ability to govern? How did his lie about his personal affair with Lewinsky manage to become grounds for impeachment? They couldn't get him on any of the lies they manufactured, so they used the so-called "Rule of Law". Funny how the "Rule of Law" only applies to Democratic Presidents and/or Democratic Presidential candidates.

"Thirdly:
America is an optomistic country. Would Clinton have won the White House and platform of anger and hatred? No. He ran on a platform of optimism and solutions to problems. Look what Reagan did in 1980 and 1984. Clinton and Reagan both ran on a can do platform. Roosevelt ran a positive campaign in the darkest hours of our nation's history. Guys like Clinton, Reagan and Roosevelt reached the pinnacle of American politics because they put forth a vision. A positive and clear idea of where they could take our country."

You conveniently forgot that Bush I raised taxes, something that pissed off quite a few people. You also forgot to mention that unemployment was pretty high during Bush I's presidency, something else that didn't sit well. Voters also remembered Bush I's role in the Iran-Contra fiasco. Yes, Clinton ran on a positive upbeat platform, but he tapped into an underlying layer of dislike for Bush I and his poor administration.

"Finally:
I am not a freeper, I think they are as annoying a group that has ever existed. I think it is very petty that those that disagree with me would attempt to discredit my by calling me a name rather than actual discussion."

So, it's our fault that your posts were worded in such a way as to create the impression that you're a Freeper? Interesting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Senator John McCain from the race using a 'he fathered a bastard child with a n**ger!!....don't ever forget how really rotten those bushies are...McCain's child is an adopted child from Asia...and these scum keep pulling that old 'strom thurmond' fear of blacks raping your white daughter, or blacks mixing with whites....

your post also perpetrates further LIES about Clinton, the best President ever !!!

you claim that Clinton "did perjure himself. He committed felony."
Yet, after an $ 85 MILLION investigation by Ken Starr, paid for with OUR taxes...Clinton was NOT convicted of any crime...NONE...repeat "CLINTON WAS NOT CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME !!!"



you omit the TRUTH in your post...your post forgets to mention the bushies, and how 'optimistic' their messages are...the bushies message of racial fear, dividing not uniting...and you forgot nixon... why did you forget him ??? the ultimate 'mccarthy' message....bush* uses the nixon approach too, the old "if you're not with me, you are un-patriotic"...and REAGUNS ???? did you already forget how the American hostages were held for months so reaguns could win that election ???


the 'carefully, subtly omitted' truth is:

1. Clinton did NOT commit any crimes.

2. the bushies LIED and used racial fear tactics to steal elections.

Do you have a problem with that?

Bush stole my democracy. He effectively murdered 51 million Gore voters.

Is that not reason enough to hate him?

So, you are not a freeper? No, you are worse. Freepers are ignorant, in denial.

You are neither. What is your excuse?

1. Dean never said that he believed in the conspiracy theories. What he said was that with the Bush actions regarding stonewalling and witholding information from the 9/11 commission, Bush was only promoting the theories that he has something to hide.

2. Clinton did *NOT* perjure himself. The judge ruled that his answers were not germane to the subject matter of the grand jury, and therefore did not constitute perjury.

3. Right now we are being led by fear, not optimism, and Bush is only continuing to promote it. I have yet to hear Bush address how he plans to get people to stop wanting to attack us. All he says is that they will continue to attack us, and that we will continue to hunt them down. Does that sound very optimistic to you?

Thanks, gave me a good chuckle this morning.

This is the face of hate.

I just ate..... :puke:

I've seen it many times but do not know it's origin.

There's definitely something unfinished in his personality.

Thanks for giving us this actual glimpse of the guy who moved into the White House.

that I can make my face do that?

and hope that some day this disaster in our country can be changed. I could not get in this am but tried and tried and I had the entire list right down the line as to why I am angry

this morning!

The Re pukes using this charge makes me sick. How they conveniently ignore the campaigns orchestrated by Baker in 88 and 92, the non-stop right wing smear machine against Clinton throughout the 90's, Bush's bellowing about Democrats not giving a dam about protecting the American people in the 2002 mid-term elections and the constant taunts and smears from the likes of Limbaugh, Colter and O'Riley that have been very effective. You bet people are angered when this administration has exploded deficits, gutted the environment, started a bullshit war on lies and propaganda which is and will continued to be paid for in lives and billions of tax payer dollars, all to line the pockets of those who have paid 2,000 dollars a plate to buy him off. You bet we are full of rage especially because the chimp wasn't even legitimately elected. It's apparent that being milk toast saps only strenghthens the Re pukes and they want to talk about liberal hate when we decide to fight back.

"It's apparent that being milk toast saps only strenghthens the Re pukes and they want to talk about liberal hate when we decide to fight back."

We've all been watching this for years now. Every time the Democrats lay down, the Republicans come back stronger and smash them more. Every time the Dems fight back, the Repubs start crying and screaming like big bratty babies. The more I hear them scream, the better. It must mean someone is pushing them back.

That's why I like most of our candidates. They know they have to fight and they won't let the screaming or the biased media affect them. Gore had to learn the hard way about how far the Republicans will go and now the current candidates have the benefit of that knowledge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then visit www.freerepublic.com.

We are quite mild in comparison.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in this misadministration are brought to justice for the death of 3000 Americans on 9-11-01.

If you don't support Democratic Party agendas and policie, you are not welcome on DU.

I have Southern roots, and I know that "you all" never, ever, includes the speaker . . .

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Clinton's administration was also woefully underprepared for this type of thing. The intelligence was there, but the communication betweeb agencies was not what it should have been.

Cowpie, please go to the truthout.org site and search for an article that William Pitt wrote dated October 13, 2003 and titled "The Sins of September 11." About the sixth paragraph down, Mr. Pitt begins to address the myth that Clinton did not do enough to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations. The editorial goes on to state that: "Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history."

It just so happens that I copied that article and came across it while cleaning out some files and piles that have accumulated here at home, so happy coincidence for you and me both. Serendipity happens!

Scoot on over and find it now and read it carefully. Then please come back and tell me and the rest of us here what you learned and what you think after reading it. OK?

they get to be as evil and corrupt as they wanna be yet we have to ignore thier destructive and radical ways and put on a bright and sunny exterier.

now we all know the chimp has lied on so many different occasions you can't keep track but the kicker is the SOTU :puke:

now... i agree that we need to couple our ligit grievences with a can-do positive outlook but that doesn't mean we need to not bring up this admins MANY radical and destructive policies and call them on it.

there are a LOT of unanswered questions and we deserve an answer.

peace

I think you ARE indeed on our side, cowpie, but your anger at our rhetoric is disingenuous.

We are the Democratic UNDERGROUND--I hope it isn't necessary to spell out the difference between us and the DLC (even the DNC).

This forum came to be because of anger over the stolen election.

WHEN will I learn to just "Bust an Alert cap" on their asses?
:7

cowpie got her tombstone too! ;-)

bwahahah! Thanks for giving me a good laugh too. Excellent work on this thread, cowpie. You're just perfect for our new Junior Jaunty Jiacinto League.

Join the Triple-JL today! Makin' moderates bob n' sway!

Hmmmm......

ROFLMAO!

- Something is very wrong with the statement that Bush* is simply the 'wrong man for the job'. This is a denial of every criminal and corrupt thing he has done since 'taking' office and before.

- People are searching for the truth and you're calling them 'looneys'? You seem to think Americans should be deaf, dumb and blind and allow government corruption to prosper.

- You don't want to debate the issues or ask questions pertaining to the Bush* White house...just call others 'loony' for being pissed that his lies and criminality go unpunished.

it does no good to deny it.

This is different from the anti-Clinton rage, which was cultivated by the VRWC, and wasn't real.

That's the difference between our anger and their hate. Ours is grass roots, we're mad and we are complaining that our leaders aren't as mad as us, they are resisting the anger. The anti-Clinton stuff started at the top, there was an actual plan devised by Gingrich to demonize

Witness Gephardt's speech 5 years ago, at the impeachment of Clinton, where he actually asked Livingston not to resign. He said if Livingston resigned, he was giving in to the politics of hatred. I don't think the GOP leader would do that, would protest the resignation of the Dem leader, they would just celebrate their victory.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or worse.

Which Dem are you leaning to right now? If you can't pinpoint at least two that you favor, I gotta think you didn't read the rules before you clicked "I Agree."

perhaps we could come up with simplified analogies they can understand.
Not many warm blooded humans wouldn't be angry about being deliberately and consistently lied to. Or maybe turn it around ask them what they find admirable about bald face lying that knowingly leads to the deaths of our love ones. I don't know, I find the whole thing so absurd.
Do they have the nerve to confront military or 9-11 families who are angry?

I wish we could get those BFEE crooks under oath somehow and make their lies official for the books.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...about a position that ignores the crimes of the Bush* White House? Do you think Bush* is above the law? Should we ignore the corrupt WH for the sake of political expediency?

- Some Demcrats are simply sick and tired of being led like sheep to the slaughter. Bush* is not a dictator and must be held accountable. I get the impression that you believe he has done nothing wrong. Is this true?

lie:
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
Date: before 12th century

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives


hope that helps. :)

From a "Christian" Bush supporter:

November 13, 2003
The Usefulness of Civil Disobedience-Part II-The Bonhoffer Option

Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, but it has a following in the darker parts of my mind.

WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary organization calling itself the Christian Liberation Front changed the balance of power in Washington by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. A force estimated at about 200 CLF commandos stormed the Supreme Court building, killing 35 people, including five Supreme Court Justices. At the same time, a contingent of 1,000 CLF paramilitaries attacked the Hart Senate Office Building, where a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting was being held. Approximately 50 people were killed in the attack. Once the commandos had seized the building, they systematically killed Democratic senators from states with Republican governors. Here is a list of the 21 senators killed

Daniel Akaka Byron Dorgan Mary Landrieu
John Breaux Bob Graham Blanche Lincoln
Hillary Clinton Ernest Hollings Barbara Mikulski
Kent Conrad Daniel Inouyye David Pryor
Tom Daschle Tim Johnson Harry Reid
Mark Dayton Ted Kennedy Paul Sarbanes
Chris Dodd John Kerry Chuch Schumer

Joe Lieberman was campaigning in South Carolina, and missed the assassins. The attackers turned themselves in to police, and are proudly confessing their crimes, cooperating with authorities.

If the governors appoint Republican replacements, there will be 72 Republicans in the US Senate until replacement elections can be held. Even if a few Democrats are named, there will be likely at least 60 votes to vote for cloture and appoint replacements for the slain Supreme Court justices, changing the balance of power on the court.

OK, I'm ignoring Vermont, where the governor is a RINO, IIRC, and sparing Ben Nelson and Zell Miller as well. I'm also assuming that Bobby Jindal wins Saturday.

I'm also assuming that such bloodshed would be a good idea; I don't think it would. Would five extra conservatives on the Supreme Court and a filibuster-free Senate be worth the bloodshed? It is opposing evil, given some of the less-than-biblical decisions that have emanated from the court.

http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/2003/11/the_usefulness__1.html

This republican fantasy illustrates a major difference between the two parties. The democratic party ignored this republican wet dream. But if something like this had been written by a democrat, the republican party would have made this into a major news story dominating several news cycles. Comrade Squealer would open every White House press briefing with a reference to this. The obedient media would cover it in a way that would make Michael Jackson coverage insignificant. Republican pundits and bloggers would be required to write about it at least on a monthly basis. Republican activists would be instructed by the RNC to go ballistically apeshit in letters to the editor and on call in shows. The College Republicans would be ordered to hold a bakesale or something. The republican party would never ignore such a story and would never let it die. One hundred years from now republican talking heads would still be saying that the author was a typical average democrat.

I'm so ANGRY I won't be able to listen.......

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...that you could say that Bush* and his cronies haven't commited criminal acts. I can only conclude that you have no interest in seeing him made accountable in any way.

- The Bushies first criminal acts were committed during the 2000 election. It all went downhill from there.

Used to be known as a buffalo chip...but we all know what a cowpie consists of.

and criminal. The whole world knows that and that is why they are not supporting the immoral war. Look around you. Less than 1% of the world's population agree with you. Billions of people understand that Bush is evil and criminal.

engage in treason. Then laughed about it. Yeah, blow-jobs in the WH are tasteless(so to speak) and it did show poor judgment. But silly me thinks treason is worse.

Do you honestly care if * is a criminal or not? I rather doubt it.

You think Bush isn't guilty of any actual crimes but Clinton is guilty of perjury?

What this boils down to is a clash between two belief systems.

Liberals believe in modern notions of democracy and human rights, an ability of society to progress, and good government as a generally positive force.

The so-called "conservatives" should more properly be called anti-liberals. They are guided by a belief in social Darwinism or "might makes right", and nihilism. They hate notions of equality, progress, and human rights, ridicule them at every opportunity, and seek to tear down all the progress that has been made. They make prolific use of demagoguery and ridicule. That's nihilism and social Darwinism, not anything worth defending.

I would also charge that anybody who says they hate liberals and liberalism really hates modern western notions of democracy and human rights, because that is precisely what liberalism is. Anyone who dislikes liberals or uses liberal as a term of contempt should be grilled on just what it is they want instead of democracy: Fascism, a return to feudalism, military dictatorship, some kind of survivalist might makes right free for all, or what?

This is most definitely a matter of good, vs. those who hate everything good and seek to tear it down. We have every right to be angry at these nihilists who have taken control of our country and are tearing down everything good that was built during the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter administrations.

He comes fom a different belief system than you or I. His policies are misguided and hurtful, but nothing thas rises to the level of criminal or evil.

Please explain what you think are the premises of the Bush belief system.

My belief system includes the premise that the ends do not justify the means. My belief system also includes the premise that self-defense is justified, but revenge is never justified. By my standards, Bush has committed criminal and evil acts.

I can only act in accord with my beliefs if I oppose those whose actions are in contradiction with those beliefs. Your belief system may differ, and that's cool, but I don't understand how anyone could be convinced that any particular set of actions or behaviors is morally wrong and yet still choose to be "understanding" about those actions and behaviors.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Going to war against Iraq was immoral in the beginning and is still immoral no matter what happens to Saddam.
Preemption is never justified. The "Bush Doctrine" is immoral and that is at the root of the PNAC idea.
The most people you talk about are the ditto head ignorant freeper types who let the administration and Limbaugh do their thinking for them.

The Pope again said the war is immoral and nothing the media or the right can say will justify the war. Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors or to us. The war is a war if imperialism and is wrong now as much as it was wrong before it stated. You can't take an evil act and turn it into something good by words.
The very idea that Bush had to lie to the country to get them to back the war talks volumes.

Seems to me Iraq is a sore spot with the Bush Family (evil empire) and that's why Dumbya went there. A little "unfinished business" as it was.
World's better off with Saddam out of power, but I'm not so sure how Iraq's fairing with the "Halliburton Plan". Seems to have a LOT of rough edges.

BTW, we don't instantly "bust a cap" on confessed ReTHUGlicans or Conservatives. we wait. Some actually last a long time and are considered as friends by some of us, even if they are in "The Dark Side"...:-)

The Bush Doctrine has nothing to do with democracy, terror or any such thing . If you think it does then I have real estate to sell you. The Bush Doctrine is to invade countries that we can win with minimal military effort(that is what they thought about Iraq) to expand imperialistic goals in the ME. Dead and starving Koreans are not Bush's problem, the WMD there should be an issue but will be avoided unless the Chinese view it as a threat.

Whatever commitment to democracy by this government has is just
a folly to get those with naïve views who haven't been following the truth of the actual policies to hold to their belief that the US is still a forse for good in the world. There isn't anyone who follows international affairs seriously, including those in power, who believe the crap that is broadcast in the US about our government's true motives.

If you think that there is anything sincere or good going on with our international affairs you need to start educating yourself yesterday.

FYI, there isn't anyone here at DU that doesn't see through a dialog which proports to treat the Administration's policies as honest.

those are our terms of endearment for the Bushies. :-)

It doesn't matter as much as you say. The rage I think can hardly be expressed in words anyway, it will have to be done at the voting booth.

And the dem elected leaders are resisting the anger, so it's not going to have the harmful effects you talk about. The Wall Street Journal posts excerpts from DU, but who cares? Everyone knows nothing on the Internet means anything if it's anonymous. Who knows, maybe the WSJ posted it themselves?

The most egregious may be this:

But now that the Republicans are in power, they seem content with the state of politics, and their anger has subsided.

You are either grossly misinformed or simply being mendacious. Because of the number of false statements I think the latter is more likely.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have you listened to hate radio lately? According to them, because I'm a liberal it means I love Saddam, hate my country, and don't work for a living. Conservatives are as hateful a bunch of people as I have ever heard.

to try to ridicule people and discourage them by pooh-poohing their anger. As if that would ever work at this point!

They want to quash our righteous anger and passion. Pink tutu Dems are easier to handle than pissed off Dems, so they are trying to push us into quashing our anger.

I say, let the anger wwash over you in a righteous fire and let that fire burn. The Repukes are not pushing THIS DEMOCRAT around any more.

I'm pissed off at the crimes of this administration and I don't give a fuck who knows it!

...and it's showing its face on this board.

- They must think we're either naive or downright stupid. Bush* is simply the wrong man for the job? He hasn't committed any criminal acts? Lying this nation into war is a criminal act. In fact...it's treason.

- We've already been warned that Conservatives would attempt this sort of thing as we approach the next election. They'll insist that Bush* is just 'misguided' and that we're unreasonably angry. I'm sorry...but that's just bullshit.

-

I've sent two alerts and am about to send another one. I don't see this kind of thing on 2004 board. What's up here lately?

I havent seen anything that would warrant an alert yet... Im starting to read from the bottom and go up. Which posts are you referring to?

There seems to be an agenda...

Yes, when they talk to each other, there sort of does.

Back when I was on AOL, they used to let you have seven or so screen names. I used to post on one message board where there was a running joke about Em and her seven sisters. One individual, "Em," who was adamantly anti-gay, posted under all of her many screen names and talked back and forth to herself and to other posters in support of herself in order to make it look like lots of folks agreed with her anti-gay position. Neat trick, but as they say, you can run but you can't hide. Writing style gives it away eventually, and at least "Em" tended to forget what each of her screen sisters had said. Oh well...

:evilgrin:

- They now control both houses...the White House...most of the judiciary...many of the states...AND the media. Did their blatant anger at Clinton and Democrats keep them from gaining more power?

- Of course conservatives don't want us to be 'angry'. Anger generally leads to the type of action and scrutiny the Bushies can't bear and remain unscathed.

- Instead of asking Democrats to cool their anger...why not ask Bush* to stop lying and put an end to his corrupt empire?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...their way into office. They've lied about their intentions and about Democrats. They outright cheated to 'win' in 2000.

- The 'electorate' hasn't shifted at all. Although it may be true that more Americans have fallen into the trap of believing the propaganda of the 'liberal' media. The landscape hasn't 'changed'...it's been bulldozed by RWing fanatics and zealots that worked for decades to get the right people in the right places.

- I'm glad 'conservative gamers' love angry leftists. They better get used to it because the anger isn't going to go away any time soon. Anger isn't always 'blind'. Sometimes it steers people to make changes...like forcing those in power to live by the same rule of law they demand of us.

- It's too late to ask us to cool our anger. Why? Because we know too much. We haven't been blinded by the corporate media. Everything is NOT okay. Bush* has lied numerous times and has killed too many innocents. He has engaged this nation in an unnecessary war that was planned before he took office.

- We're not going to be suckers for the Bushies or the Republican party. We're drawing a line in the sand and will demand that Bush* be held accountable for his criminal actions. For once in his life he WILL be held to the rule of law.

There is such a thing as justifiable anger
that can and should be used appropriately.

Repugs reserve the right to be angry, vindictive
and aggressive but when we have the same feelings
they see them as unreasonable.

They aggressively STOLE the election with
underhanded tactics and a stacked supreme
court. That alone is unforgivable, they
will do the same thing again if we let them.
They will always have names to call us and
think tanks to guide them toward the kill.

I still remember hearing a repug yell into
the camera after stealing the 2000 presidential
debacle "you are witnessing the death
of the democratic party". The truth is the
right does not see a need for two parties,
they want us dead! Anyone who doesn't believe
that does not see that our parties survival
is at stake.

The Rs are back in power because they were able to give definition to their anger through an agenda. The agenda was fueled by hatred and fear(witness the rise of RW talk radio).

Just anger was what a father in a family had if the kids acted up or when someone did something bad against his family. It was supposedly OK for the head of the house to get angry because his authority came from God. I never bought into all that.

If the Democratic Party is angry than it is "just anger". That means that the Democratic Party is justified in being angry.

The Republican government that we now have is destroying all the progress that has been made since Roosevelt in its pursuit of Conservative dogma.

The media is complacent as you can see from the C-Span show this morning. The media in conjunction with the Republicans have come upon this talking point of the angry Democratic Party. I believe it is true that most of us are angry and that anger will turn into a large voter turn out if it is allowed to continue. That is the reason the right talks about the anger and calls it hate. It is part of the politics of the election campaign. If we can be painted as being negative than maybe people like you can talk to us and try to persuade us to give up the anger. That most likely won't happen.
The anger had its roots in the stolen election and has grown especially with the administration lying about the reasons for war. Now our troops are dying for nothing but the goals of the PNAC and that is totally immoral.

Yes we are angry and it is just anger and it won't go away because you try to paint it in a negative light.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He admitted he was Conservative and started supporting the Republicans. That violates DU rules.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

I've read the rules, obviously some have not.

No matter how many facts Clinton's defenders presented the right said "just give me the facts." Well your call for evidence is just the same kind of argument. There is plenty of evidence if you bother to get it and you know it. It is not our job to respond to that kind of argument.
This thread is too small to present it here. You can read for yourself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and being on this board admitting you will be voting for Bush in 2004 is against the rules.

That is like defending a killer because you like him. Steven Covey talks about moral laws or natural laws, which do exist. He is not talking about the same thing that the religious right talks about. He says that you can see by the outcome that something is not moral and if that action is repeated you will get the same immoral outcome.
The war in Iraq is immoral, destroying the middle class and not paying a just wage is immoral. Destroying the air and water we need to survive is immoral. Giving a tax cut to the top 1% is immoral. Causing the largest deficit in history to continue to grow so that social programs will be choked off, social security and Medicare are two, is immoral. If you support that your are immoral too.

It is not just a matter of a difference of opinion. One of us is on the side of justice and right and the other is not. The Democratic Party stands for what Jesus taught. We are the moral ones not the Conservatives. You can't have it any other way. You either are on the side of justice and morality or you are not.
You must not support the killing of innocent Iraqis and our own troops because Saddam was a bad man. Killing in this case is wrong and immoral.

For your calm posting and thoughts.

I think what you are seeing/hearing is SOME anger, SOME frustration, SOME indignation, SOME passion - it's a hodgepodge, with elements of all, to varying degrees, depending on the individual and the issue. But what a lot of us are. . .er, upset about is that they all get lumped into one word - anger. The most egregious quotes are cherry-picked by the right and amplified by the media. AND portrayed as emblematic, ignoring both the root of the anger and the context in which it is given.

Also, the Dem party has a lot of strong feelings within the party faithful towards it's own leadership. We feel they've been gullible and used. Case in point - Mary Landrieu is probably the epitome of a Dem willing to work in a bi-partisan manner with the Republican leadership and the administration. She supported Bush on the Iraq War, the tax cuts, and the Patriot Act. What did she get for her willingness to join Bush in his desire to be a "uniter not a divider"? They threw everything at her they could in an effort to defeat her. WHY? She wasn't obstructionist. She was furthering the administration's goals. She was the poster child of what the Prez said HE wanted in Washington. From my view, that said loud and clear that "making nice" doesn't work with this crowd. Ted Kennedy working with Bush on NCLB is another example (and he really should have known better)of trying to work WITH the administration only to be sandbagged. Again.

There are more examples, but the bottom line is that you can only be hit on the head with a baseball bat so many times before you (DUH) realize that the only way to win is by getting out of the strike zone and playing your own version of hard ball.

It's being spun as "anger" but its a lot more complicated than that. Tapping into it now, during the primaries, is the right thing to do. I'm guessing that by the time the GE comes along, it will be at a nice simmer, with some cold calculating thrown in and a game face for the public, which will deflect a lot the spin. We have to go that route, because complacency and a willingness to give an inch hasn't gotten us shit. Whether you like him or not, Dean's message about proud of being a Democrat again resonates with a lot of people, for just this reason.

eileen from OH

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and if you bother looking, he's been tombstoned as a disruptor.

Presenting ANY conservative argument or supporting Bush in ANY way is disruption on DU.

I don't see any point at all having someone who is "probably going to vote for GWB in 2004" posting on this board. Yes, Mustapha is calmly posting but IMHO his/her "calm" posts are just so much bullshit. I've parsed my way through this stuff and it's a waste of my time debating it with a conservative who buys into it.

One example.

Bush said that the U.S. was invading Iraq for two main reasons.

The first of those reasons was Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Every bit of evidence we now have indicates that this was a false statement, and every bit of evidence we now have indicates that Bush knew at the time the statements were made that they were false.

The second of those reasons was Saddam Hussein's alleged torture and murder of so many of the people of Iraq. That statement appears to be absolutely true. But just as some folks wondered where Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction if not from the U.S. when the U.S. supported his resistance against Iran, so some folks (like me) wondered where Saddam got his instruments of torture. The article linked below was my epiphany. In fact, it doesn't say that the U.S. sold instruments of torture to Saddam, but if the Bush administration should decide to invade Jordan or Morocco or Saudi Arabia based upon the fact that those nations' leaders are torturing their own people, what will you think? How much of this will it take to convince you?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=F7CE0B13E65E100085256DF00050B882

From that article:
A new Amnesty International report charges that in 2002, the Bush Administration violated the spirit of its own export policy and approved the sale of equipment implicated in torture to Yemen, Jordan, Morocco and Thailand, despite the countries' documented use of such weapons to punish, mistreat and inflict torture on prisoners. The US is also alleged to have handed suspects in the 'war on terror' to the same countries.

The total value of US exports of electro-shock weapons was $14.7 million in 2002 and exports of restraints totaled $4.4 million in the same period. The Commerce and State Departments approved these sales, permitting 45 countries to purchase electro-shock technology, including 19 that had been cited for the use of such weapons to inflict torture since 1990.

Angry yet, Mustapha?

I'm alerting; bye.

I ask.....Why?
I ask.....How?
I ask.....When?

You see Mustapha Mond, it is our anger, it came from
theft of the W.H. by conservatives, it came from
watching our status in the world fall to less than
zero through the pompous bullying tactics of an
intellectually challenged pResident, it came from
watching our deficit balloon to unimaginable proportions,
it came from watching the children of the lower classes
being sent overseas to war on a nation in poverty
who was no threat to our shores, it came from watching
American jobs being shipped overseas by corporations
who are already receiving favorable treatment by this
W.H., it came from seeing an administration that
blatantly favors the rich through reverse Robin Hood
techniques by robbing the poor and middle class and
giving to the rich.......there is much to be angry
about I don't see any reason to give it up because
you don't see it as sensible.

Mostapha Mond says; "It takes a lot of restraint to tone down the hyperbole and suppress the anger and focus on issues, truth, and political philosophy."

Restraint? I remember organized repugs charging
the recount of votes in Florida and scaring
the hell out of the poor vote counters. Result
of all the repug manipulation, hyperbole and
anger is that they got the White House.

We will decide what to do with our justifiable
anger, you can take your fake air of reasonableness
back to post it on a freeper board where you will
be understood. We don't need it here!

We are going to harness this anger and let it
ride us all the way into the White House in 2004!

It's nice to read something besides "you liberals (*&^(*))!"

My problem with the Bush Cartel is that I believe they make their decisions, especially war and peace decisions, with their corporate backers in mind first.

It is horrible that 10 US GI's died Christmas week, for what? Regime change? It's done. WMD? WHAT WMD???

I really think the Dems should use Limbaugh, Coulter et al in their ads. They seem so completely looney and out of touch with reality. They should also use tapes from the GOP candidates in 92, 96, 2000 who inevibably oppose what this government is doing now -- overspending, nation building, etc.

I've read articles by Safire, Novak, G Will warning the "liberals" not to make to much out the lack of WMD because it might backfire and make them look bad. I've also read articles from the Weekly Standard, National Review, WSJ etc that also give "advice" to "misguided liberals" about the arguments they are pursuing. My reaction to that is that we are on the right track if the Right Wingers are telling us not to pursue that course. The right doesn't share our interest so it makes no sense for us to follow any of their "helpful advice." So, I'm wondering...why are you offering this advice to us if it's only going to get your guys out of power?

from loseranne.com....

Reply 6 - Posted by: sunflower, 12/27/2003 10:40:41 AM

Rest assured, carpetbagger fat PIAPS is going to be livid, about money being taken away from this crooked Organization. Too many more have been overpaid, or fraudently paid, using the WTC as an excuse, sadly. shoomer, hitlery both worthless wastes of humanity.


Reply 3 - Posted by: osu mom, 12/27/2003 9:35:32 AM

It is horrifying to think of what damage this doc, who ails of diarrhea of mouth, could do should he win the election.


Reply 8 - Posted by: sunflower, 12/27/2003 10:33:37 AM

The only loony ticks in this picture are the follywood dopeheads, and the deeeemonkRATS who pander to them. Haven't we seen enough filth out of follywood due to the klintoonistas being in Office for 8 Long DO NOTHING Years? The movies are more disgusting than ever, along with their songs and lyrics, of which the klintoons approved. Time to clean up follywood, and stand behind our President, under any circumstances, for the survival of our Nations Security. God Bless President Bush, Our Military, God Bless America.


Reply 10 - Posted by: GettaClue, 12/27/2003 10:46:53 AM

Look at what they're trying to do to Rush. I hope he can stand strong.


Reply 16 - Posted by: CalypsoDiver, 12/27/2003 8:07:19 AM

BL Bug: Amen to that.

Pray for Ho-Ho to win the dim-nod. The Bush victory will be enormous.

Add to that the pleasure that will be garnered by tasting the electronic tears of lamentation which will pour from the keyboards of Ho-Ho whore postings on his support sites and ahhhh....


Reply 17 - Posted by: WimeTarmerFable, 12/27/2003 9:32:44 AM

The Dean nomination is based on very shaky ground - Dean's record as Governor, his arrogance and socialist belief, and his precarious (ha!) mental state. No chance that PIAPS will allow him the nomination. The Secret Police will see to that.


Reply 1 - Posted by: ccrepub, 12/26/2003 7:58:45 PM

The dRATS are not unlike the "BORG". They may be detached from one pod, then assimilated quite nicely with another. No bad is ever wasted when it comes to parasites. These creatures that won't go away are troublesome; but we know who they are; and how danderous. The drats have become more overt in their actions of late, because "RUSH" has exposed them over the years(Hence the illegle pill thing). The Clinton's are very, very behind this open end attack on RUSH to rid them selves of him and his truths before Hillary finds her way to fly under radar to the Presidency. I believe Dr. Van Hellsing had this same problem with COUNT DRACULA. God is on our side; Be vigilant my friends.


Reply 4 - Posted by: kelcom, 12/26/2003 9:38:52 PM

Forgive me but that's why I'm stymied, stymie. Is America ready to elect a President who is never with her spouse? See where I'm going with this? They don't live together, they don't get together for the holidays, he's a pathological lier and womanizer and she's....well, she's PIAPS! What kind of bizzaro-world marriage do they have? And more importantly does it matter to the sittin on the fence, wet finger in the air judging wind direction, CNN/Alphabets zombie swing voters of this country? IMHO I think this is a pretty important issue concerning PIAPS viability as a candidate. There is no precedent for this kind of President. Does it matter? Hmmmmmm?


Reply 18 - Posted by: amereagle, 12/26/2003 9:31:49 PM

Hillary Clinton as President = Civil War II and blood in the streets of every city in America.


Reply 16 - Posted by: drakskepp, 12/25/2003 1:54:33 PM

Clinton is desperate for a Nobel Peace Prize and will happily and knowingly cause the death of thousands of people to achieve it.

His "peace-keeping" missions are bloodstained.


Reply 29 - Posted by: pallis, 12/25/2003 2:54:23 PM

Considering Clinton's dismal record at making peace, the Indians better be wary. Nothing good can come from this lord of scum.


Reply 35 - Posted by: Goalposts, 12/25/2003 4:31:41 PM

Doesn't matter what this POS does with the rest of his pathetic life, he is now and will always be the impeached president, an alleged rapist, a sexual predator and the guy who was masturbating in the sink of the oval office bathroom when he was getting his weenie weenie licked by some blimp intern in the oval office...Oh and did I mention, he did nothing of any consequence while in office for 8 years except collect vast sums of money for his party, from drug dealers, foreign communists and anywhere he could find it. And that he let terrorism go unchallenged so that it could pull off 9/11.

Leftist whores in the media are wasting their time trying to rebuild his soiled legacy. He's forever an embarrassment to the country and the world.

1. What does "tombstoned" mean?
2. And what does n/t mean?
LOL, I know this is probably obvious but would like to know.
Please and thanks

I think that tombstoned means banned but I am not sure, it is not a regular term I see around here a lot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I want my nation's endeavors to succeed"

If our nation is motivated by PNAC, if our endeavors are imperialist wars, preemptive strikes against nations that can do us no harm, wars that are motivated by the greed of the ruling class than those endeavors are immoral. If we kill innocent people because we want our endeavors to succeed we are morally wrong!

If you cannot understand that this nation can and is doing something that is morally wrong, then you will never understand what I am saying.

It is not just a matter of two differing opinions as I have stated. In this case one opinion is in line with what is morally right and just and one is not. What this administration is doing to this country and to the world is wrong, period end of story. If someone supports it they are wrong whether they realize it or not. In time these deaths will have to be atoned for. We cannot kill innocent people so that our endeavors will succeed.

There can be two opposing views but in this case one is immoral and one is not. If you talk to most religious leaders and I don't mean fundamentalists but most leaders of the world’s great religions and those who are not necessarily religious but may be existentialists, they will tell you that this administration's endeavors are morally wrong.

Talking against that truth does not diminish the fact that it is true.

You can't be moral and support Bush?

That's about it, Cowpie. You can't be moral and support Hitler or Stalin either. You can't be moral and support Holocaust deniers. Some things just don't wash. Sorry 'bout that.

What happened to the free market place of ideas?

Your ideas aren't being banned or censored are they? Several people have very respectfully presented arguments to the contrary, but no one has banned you from posting and stating your thoughts.

But the free marketplace of ideas is a lot larger than this board. This board has a focused purpose and goals. The free marketplace is the whole internet where all sorts of ideas are available for your consideration. Really, when you think about it, no one message board could possibly encompass a discussion of all the ideas out there. The server would go kaflooie!

So, if you'd like a discussion of topics that most folks here aren't much interested in discussing, you've got the entire internet.

in the mean time I want my nation's endeavors to succeed. I want a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, a strong economy with jobs and I want our people protected from terrorism. I want these things even if it means we have to suffer through another four years with shrub.

I think you are dealing with what is known as mutually exclusive goals. Or maybe it's cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure of the exact terminology, but I am sure that our nation is not going to succeed in its endeavors, or create a peaceful and prosperous Iraq and a strong economy there or here at home, nor are we going to be safe from terrorism as long as Shrub is in the White House.

BTW, as a non-Christian living in the U.S. these days, that comment about freedom from being killed by religious radicals does strike a chord. But I don't look back over my shoulder to see if there are any radical Islamics behind me nearly as much as I worry about the radical fundamentalist Christians.

When a poster is a disruptor and gets banned, this ends up in their profile:

It's like a different language. Nasty!

After all, I was expected to be angry about Clinton lying about a blowjob.


rocknation

that strikes me is that there is SOOO much to be enraged and ashamed of with the current regime and yet Mustapha is trying to sound like a statesman while not so subtly scolding Democrats for their anger and passion. Gee, I dunno, putting the constitution in the paper shredder and attacking a sovereign country is enough for me to get a little miffed about.
And Cowpie...people should'nt be "judged by their ideology"? Huh?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"there are more important things in the world than politics,"

Of course there are but in this thread we are discussing the anger of the Democrats and it relevance to the upcoming election and that is politics.


"like people having jobs"

We have lost 3.5 million jobs since Bush took office and more and more of our jobs are going overseas. A continuation of this administration's policies will not change that.


"and food"

People are dying everyday by eating food that had not been inspected because of the Bush administration's attempts to help it's constituencies become wealthier.

"and freedom from being killed by religious radicalism"

Do you really believe that starting wars with the Islamic nations makes us safer from religious radicalism? Think again. We are no more safe than we were on 9/10! There is more cause now for radicals to appose this nation than there was on 9/11 because of Bush's war!


"People should be judged not by their race, creed, or by their ideology, but by the content of their character."

People can and should be judged by their ideology and the character argument is a canard of the right. There is very little "character" in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al. All are a part of the administration's lies and immoral actions.

edited to change 350 to 3.5

"We have lost 350 million jobs since Bush took office and more and more of our jobs are going overseas."

I think you mean approximately 3.5 million jobs.

That's a lot, but we don't want to sound like O'Lielly.

Yeah, you're a Dem and progressive all right. And I'm the tooth fairy.

Nice try.

I also wanted to suggest a few posts up that Mustapha, you and the other disrupter should form your own support group/forum - and we are supposed to be surprised that you 3 agree?!

Maybe we all should leave this thread so you 3 can play kissy-face and agree all you want and spout more nonsense.

Oh, wait - you can't - you're all gone!

And I'm STILL angry! JUSTIFIED ANGRY! RIGHTEOUS ANGRY!

It makes it all the more obvious.

I am curious about your sig line.

You could talk the talk (sort of) but not walk the walk.

prospect of returning this dear country to the American people. I had the same reaction to those posts as you did.

Righteous anger gets things done. Bush it Hitler, remember it.

WHO is angry? HA!

and they are surprised we do not throw rose petals at their feet in response to their hatred of us.

And is right up there with "When did you stop beating your spouse?"

That said, if your country is stolen from you, and driven in an abhorrent direction, isn't anger an appropriate response?

Damn right I'm angry.

because I have trouble talking and sometimes people have difficulty understanding what I'm saying. Also, I really enjoy burning brush. I like to clear-out my land and light a brush fire in the evening, get a cup of coffee at twilight while the fire brightens and dusk creeps-in.

It's as simple as that...

I could never vote for him, either...

ya right

has people full of hate. It's when one viewpoint is overwhelming and controls a party completely, from the inside out, that it becomes more than a frustrating aggravation.

In fact, anyone who's not a Christian fundamentalist making $400k per year in the defense industry should be angry. The Bush Administration has conducted an assault on the middle class, civil rights, and the world for three years now. They're robbing the country and handing everything to corporations.

The fact that Democrats are actually angry is the only thing giving me the hope that more might finally wake the fuck up.