What should be done if Dems screw up and lose 06 too?

I am sincerely hoping they win, and they have made some steps toward actually standing for something including pulling out of Iraq.

Nonetheless, it's not hard to imagine them throwing away a potential easy victory through timidity, or boldness followed by an apology, or a GOP opponent correctly pointing out all the times that a Democrat now critical of Bush voted with the fascists over the last couple of years.

Kerry essentially made the election close enough for Bush to steal by not being blunter about the war and critical of Bush to his face when he had a chance during the debates and couldn't be edited to pieces by Fox News. By fall of 2004, it was not only obvious Bush lied about the reasons he invaded Iraq, but the real reasons could have easily been pointed out since he gave the oil concessions in Iraq to his cronies who were screwing us at the pump, and of course, the Abu Ghraib scandal had broken out the previous spring, and documents showed Bush and top cabinet officials approved of those uncontestable war crimes. Kerry's quick concession in the face of vote rigging and vote fraud may have been pragmatically correct, but nonetheless dispirited those who put a lot of energy into campaigning for him.

If Democrats hold back again, what should be done?

If the Democratic leadership feels that it should "keep its powder dry" at such a critical moment, then there really isn't much alternative except to accept what the leadership says.

We live in a two-party duopoly. There is very little chance of dis-entrenching an established political party and replacing it with a new one. You're left with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican at the ballot box. Voting for a third party will simply be cutting your own throats by the very rules of the game the people chose to play by when it ratified the US Constitution in its current form.

If neither Democratic nor Republican leaders have an answer, then there is no answer the government can offer to the people. It is then up to the people to decide whether it should let that continue or formulate an answer of their own.

but they determine whether I can afford to go to the doctor, what my tax money goes to, and whether any kids I have will be drafted to kill Iranians, Iraqis, Venezuelans, and eventually even Saudis.

I hope that if I'm wrong, somebody will correct me, but there is nothing in The Constitution that restricts us to two parties, it just seems to be all that the sheeple can grasp.

But this is largely imposed on us by pols who don't want too much competition or ideas in play beyond a very narrow range.

cuz that is the only way it's gonna happen.

Most instances of it these days have been cute couple-day long, ANSWER-infested protests, after which everyone goes home, content with A Job Well Done and Their Part Played. Protests these days are as much social events and everyone's-pet-cause things as anything else these days.

If folks want to have some kinda influence, they really should start seeing if they can't keep four or five digits' worth of people someplace for days, weeks, or even months. That and have a protest be about an issue, as opposed to protesting the Iraq war or election fraud or Bush's latest decision to become President Andrew Jackson II being drowned out by every other progressive and supposedly-progressive cause out there.

You want people to believe you're serious? Take to the streets and stay there, in large numbers, for greatly extended periods of time. I don't care if you've got a midterm to study for, or if you get tired, or if it's rainy out, or whatthefuckever. People need to start deciding between their comfortable routines and the state of their country and society.

Or maybe just start ignoring the fucking "first amendment zones."

Or start thinking about what the options are if it does turn out that simply waving signs and "raising awarness" in symbolic actions is no longer effective. The sixties have passed; it's time people recognized that.

Not with guns or protests in the streets, but by banding together the progressive states and forming a new country free of religious bigotry. Leave Jesusland to the Falwell Fundies (Bush can be president for life).

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

Those mountainous areas of Idaho & Wyoming will be crowded with fundie refugees when it becomes "Bush's Last Stand."
:rofl:

Those are some really scary looking guys...as in posssessing only three brain cells...and they have never met each other.

He tests all his propaganda ideas on them before he uses them on the public.

And then plays DELIVERANCE with them.

I suppose it's a question of what your tolerance is for "enough is enough," and how far you're willing to go to redress grievances at that point.

(D'ohyeah, that's a generalized "you," not you in particular, CC. This thought's been bouncing through my head for days for some reason.)

They will take one or both Houses. If they don't, the elections were stolen, and that's quite different from "screwing up."

There will be some who think some candidates are too liberal, others who think some candidates are too conservative, but they have a good sense of their constituencies and understand the local nature of politics.

BushCo would have to give every American at least five grand to quell the dissatisfaction, and he ain't got that kind of dough.

in states like California, they could have much more vigorously and effectively fought the machines since we are the majority. Instead, they let the GOP crucify our secretary of state who was working on the issue, and let Arnold appoint a replacement who keeps trying to bring the machines back in thru the back door.

I'm worried that the Dems at the national level are doing the same thing. They want to win, but if someone greases their palm to look away from an issue like electronic voting, they will do so.

A message for the working class people of America is what made FDR so damn popular, but nobody wants to emulate that. It's too dangerous to the monied interests.

Eventually, people will erupt if they are continually ignored.

the "Dean Scream" character assassination based on nothing. That should be in some kind of PR hall of fame for smears.

But, the darn threads keep scrolling down to the back page.

Maybe more nude pictures?

That, I think, would be a winner. But we can't be half-assed. We need to stand up for ending the drug war, the right to physician assisted suicide, the right of consenting adults to damn well read, watch, and do what they want insofar as it involves, again, consenting adults, and the concept that a citizen's body doesn't belong to the state or the church, it belongs to him or her alone.

Tie that in with clear support for a liveable minimum wage, a SPHC system, and a manhattan-style project to develop clean, renewable sources of energy, making us the leader in that area again and CREATING NEW JOBS.

I think that has a much better chance of succeeding, as opposed to "moderate" more-of-the-same economic corporatism combined with pandering to the religious right.

He's up George Felix Allen's ass, with almost NO DOUGH.

I can't speak to California, but one way of helping to ensure it doesn't go wobbly on you is to volunteer.

Do some precinct walking, phone work, and drive people to the polls. Find a candidate and work like hell for him or her. Don't sweat the "national level" .... all politics IS local. Be part of the solution.

Way to gooooo!

Nice job blunting a Swift Boat type attack.

a third party. Work in that third party to make it a real viable alternative to the one party system we are reapidly approaching.

I think a viable third party is what this country needs. Shake things up a little.

...and censoring the NYT. The "opposition party" is opposing nuances within right wing philosophies for the most part. There are effectively no alternatives in American government, just different flavors of the same.

Every time I turn on my TV I just want to - :argh:

or in the movie V for Vendetta. They put soldiers in the position of deciding whether to kill their family and neighbors, or side with them, and they chose correctly. Since we have less of a tradition of authoritarianism here, I have no doubt that American troops would respond correctly.

...to complain about. I remember reading a great snippet in one of my reference books for a class that reprinted a letter written to Mikhail Gorbachev a few months in to his reforms. I'll paraphrase:

"Dear Mr. Gorbachev,

I am very excited to see your reforms being placed in to action, and have much optimism about the future of the Great Soviet Union and her people. Having said that, I feel compelled to let you know that, without success, I have spent every day for the last week searching our stores for a pair of socks. The ones I have are very worn and let the cold and moisture reach right in to my toes with icy claws.

Mr Gorbachev, I can not participate in Perestroika without socks.

Regards,

John Q. Soviet"


As long as Americans can shop at Costco, finance new Cadillacs or flat screen TVs, and pick any one of the 500 pairs of socks available at just about any department store in town, don't go looking for the tanks to be rolling on DC anytime soon.

toys repossessed, they won't have money for socks.

I teach college and I'm just about there.

and what you define as an easy victory? If you think taking back the House and Senate is an easy victory in gerrymandered districts against incumbents, I disagree.

Also - I don't agree with defining the "Dems" as "them". We are the Dems and each of us has to do our part for Democratic victories in '06.

their masters and mouthing empty platitudes so the rest of us get bored and stop paying attention.

We can't beat the GOP with Hallmark card bland platitudes and simply not being as bad as republicans.

The GOP understands that campaigning is about telling a story, and a story has conflict.

Everything you say in a campaign should have two parts:

1. Here's how the GOP fucked something up through incompetence or cronyism.
   
   
2. Here's how I will fix it.
   
   

Democrats seem to be will to do a very vague version of the second, when they need to be much more specific and include bringing down the hammer on the intentional damage the GOP has done to our country.

To the degree that they don't attack GOP policies and often even vote with the worst like the bankruptcy bill, it's hard not to conclude that they have similar priorities.

Yes - there are elected Dems that don't vote the way we want them to, don't run their campaigns like we want them to...

All that means is that we have to work harder to change things. A DLC Dem is better than a Republican - they will help give us the majority and chairs of committees, they will add numbers to our caucus. A Dem majority will also help pull the public opinion back toward the middle-left which could allow DLC Dems to reconnect with their roots.

We should not give up. We should keep working to get Dems elected and work for the Dems that we believe in in the Primaries. But don't get a defeatist attitude that the "them" lost or that the "them" had the wrong message - we have to work to change it from inside.

the show, they could screw the pooch with their pre-compromised, GOP lite approach.

Let's say we net 3 senate seats and 10 house seats. That's very reasonable given the senate playing field and trying to evict so many incumbents in red states, plus the redistricted house seats. I'm sure DUers will scream theft given that scenario since we fall short of control in both chambers.

Many DUers would rather spend 2 or 4 more years blaming Diebold than trying to understand and correct why we don't win. It might be exponentially worse this fall if we fall just short of control. I can just picture the headers; "we would have won 50 house seats and 8 senate seats without DREs!"

I'll continue to argue we should all but ignore the Republicans, same thing I've insisted since early '04. Opinions of this adminstration and president are basically locked in place. I've yet to see any impact from our negativity toward Bush. His approval ratings are directly related to how he performs and outside influences we have no control over, like Katrina.

No one is impressed with the GOP, but until we define ourselves in simple terms so that apolotical types can spit out a simple sentence defining Democrats in positive terms, we lose or tread water. I don't care if it's, "We support potato chips." Just put something out there as a group, something the masses will remember and repeat.

I post on balanced political forums on a couple of specialized sites and the mime is always the same there, "I don't like Bush but the Democrats don't stand for anything, other than hating Bush."

Perception becomes reality and right now we're idiotic not to realize that's the widespread perception.

some real action or at least a value that is specific enough someone could disagree with.

Too many democrats seem to think that platitudes that are so vague no one can figure out how to hold them accountable for them are good enough, but even if the public doesn't see through those they are likely to do something worse--ignore them.

Democrats have to dare to say something that might offend someone, and then stick to it for decades to win the respect of people and have them know what the brand stands for. By agreeing with the GOP so much of the time on economic issues, the Dems only distinctives are abortion, gay marriage, and other cultural boutique issues--or at least that's the most the guy on the street could say.

Fighting for the minimum wage is a good start toward substance. Saying people who go to work everyday should be able to survive without welfare or working three jobs offends some republicans, but is morally correct, something most people could agree with, and consistent with Democrats historic values.

Fighting things like NAFTA that make outsourcing easier, or adding corporate responsibilities to corporate welfare like price controls on drugs in exchange money for drug research which apparently comes with NO strings right now.

Better yet, let's do that now and avoid the chance of a loss in '06. Join your local party... become a star volunteer for one of your local campaigns... and start taking back the Dem Party!!

NGU.

since it wasn't tried.

It's possible if he'd been more strident, he might have lost more voters, and that by being the way he was is what brought it close in the first place.

I'm not convinced that a more in your face candidate like Dean or someone else would have made the race close, or given the media more fodder with which to make our side look like baffoons.

At least with Kerry's demeanor, one could actually see him as presidential.

he was deferential to Bush to the point of being effeminate.

he didn't have to be "strident," just blunt, witty, and honest about what Bush is and has done.

To stupid people, who are Bush's base, being too polite looks servile not civil.

I have heard him sound like a real person on any number of talk radio appearances, but in the debates someone seems to have told him that people want a stepford wife for president.

Esp. not Bush's base.

And I thought he kicked all kind of butt in the debates, myself. That's about when our HQ kicked into high gear. Suddenly people could see us winning.

person who saw it KNEW IT. Why you are REVISING HISTORY at this point is a question.

Deferential to Bush - - HAHAHAHAHAH..... that sounds like PURE WISHFUL THINKING ON THE GOPs PART, and it's why they are still spinning against and focusing on Kerry as a target today.

And how about that....so are YOU.

his physical demeanor was often odd, diffident, and deferential, which wouldn't communicate to someone with limited critical thinking skills that he could replace the other guy.

A good example would be how Reagan treated Jimmy Carter in the 1980 debates, or even Clinton and Papa Bush in 1992. Both were calm and polite, but not deferential.

the debates. Bush was hunched over like a buffoon, and Kerry stood straight and tall like a statesman.

His campaign even mocked Bush for how easily they SWEPT the debates immediately after the last debate.

I think your version is the version that ROVE WANTS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE TODAY, as if they never watched it with their own eyes.

What a crock you are trying to sell here.

Don't make me dig up the clips of the goofy fake smile on his face when Bush was speaking, nodding when Bush was speaking, and clasping his hands together, and the tone he started many of his comments with.

He won, but he could have eviscerated Bush with more barbs like the one about Saddam having nothing to do with 9/11. After seeing Bush's reaction to that, it's not hard to imagine three or four similar blows uncorking him on national TV.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Kerry-Edwards Campaign:

Kerry 4-0 In Snap Polls

CBS: KERRY WINS UNDECIDEDS 39-25

-- In a poll of undecided voters, Kerry won 39 percent - 25

Before the debate, 29 percent said he had clear positions on the issues, after, that number doubled to 60 percent.

ABC: KERRY WINS REPUBLICAN HEAVY POLL

-- Kerry won 42 percent-41 percent, in a poll with 8 percent more Republicans than Democrats (38-40), Kerry was still seen as the winner: 42-41. Independent voters gave the win to Kerry: 42-35 (abcnews.com)

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: KERRY WINS

-- Who did a better job: Kerry 52 - Bush 39. Among independents, Kerry won even bigger: 54-34.

DEMOCRACY CORPS: KERRY WINS 41-36

-- Kerry won 41-36 among debate watchers.

Among independents, Kerry won by 6 point, and by nine in battleground states.

Undecideds broke for Kerry, saying he won by eight points. (democracycorps.com)

-- And Don't Forget The First Two Debates --

Debate Number 2: Kerry 3-0

ABC: Debate watchers say Kerry won" Kerry 44, Bush 41

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: Debate watchers say Kerry wins 47 - 45

DEMOCRACY CORPS: Kerry wins 45-37, and by even more among independents, undecideds and battleground state voters.

Debate Number 1: Kerry 5-0

ABC: Kerry won 45-36, "It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed." (abcnews.com)

CBS: In their poll of uncommitted voters, Kerry won 44-26.

CNN/USA TODAY GALLUP: Kerry won 53-37, and 60-29 among independents.

DEMOCRACY CORPS: Kerry won 45-32.

AMERICAN RESEARCH GROUP: Kerry won 51-41.

-- FINAL WORD: KERRY WINS -- Kerry In Control And Winner --

Bob Novak: "Kerry seems to be overpowering Bush." (cnn.com, 10/13/04)

Pat Buchanan: "Kerry was, I thought, very much at the top of his game and I thought toward the end, when you saw Kerry, you saw more of the humanity of the man in some of those questions, which was very helpful to them; talking about the daughters and things. I thought he had some excellent moments." (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Jon Meacham, Newsweek: "John Kerry took the populist war straight to the President." (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Bill Schneider: "Well this was a decisive win for John Kerry. It was just about as decisive as his win in the first debate, which everyone agreed was a blowout. His, the first debate he won by 16 points; this debate, Kerry won by 13 points. According to the views of the viewers polled immediately after the debate so they had no chance really to be influenced by the spin." (CNN, 10/13/04)

Washington Post: "An essentially dignified and thoughtful performance by John Kerry, contrasted with an oddly giggly turn by George W. Bush, combined to give the last debate of the presidential campaign to the challenger last night, but very narrowly." (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

-- Kerry's Momentum Grew And Keeps Growing --

Carlos Watson: "As we went along, as we talked about social security, as we talked about immigration, as we talked even about the Supreme Court, I thought John Kerry ultimately found his voice. And when all is said and done I think Kerry will be proclaimed the winner, which I think will be significant because I think he will be viewed as having won all three debates." (CNN, 10/13/04)

Anthony Mason: "Dan, the uncommitted voters in our survey have given the edge in this debate, to this final debate, to John Kerry." (CBS, 10/13/04)

-- Kerry Appealed to Voters --

David Gergen: "What I thought John Kerry did very effectively tonight was reach out to women voters and they've become critical to his election Charlie, its the biggest change that's taken place since these debates started." (PBS, 10/13/04)

-- Kerry More Presidential And Stronger Than Bush --

Bill Schneider: "Well I think he did appear more presidential than the president, which is exactly why he won the first debate and why he won this debate." (CNN, 10/13/04)

Richard Wolfe: "John Kerry has looked more presidential and more personable as these debates have gone on." (CNN, 10/13/04)

Melinda Henneberger, Newsweek: "Overall in the three debates, you really have to say that Kerry came across as more commanding and that the president... did not always even seem in command of himself." (MSNBC, 10/14/04)

-- Kerry Clear On Issues --

Mark Shields: "I think Kerry is far more factual." (PBS, 10/13/04)

USA Today: "By double-digit margins, those surveyed gave Kerry higher marks than Bush for expressing himself clearly, understanding issues and caring about the needs of people like them. Kerry was more believable, they said." (USA Today, 10/14/04)

New York Times: "Kerry's answer on health-care costs may be his best yet. He lays out the case against the administration logically and clearly." (Kit Seeyle, New York Times online, 10/13/04)

New York Times: "The president refused to accept any responsibility for the lapse of the ban on assault weapons and completely dodged the question of whether he wanted to see the Supreme Court reverse Roe vs. Wade, while Mr. Kerry gave strong responses to both questions. "I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right," he said. "So I don't intend to see it undone."" (Ed. New York Times, 10/14/04)

-- Bush Mission To Win Debate: NOT ACCOMPLISHED --

Tom Fielder: "I think tonight was tough territory for President Bush to even be playing in. And the odds were tough for him. Frankly I don't, again speculation, but I don't think that he was able to do anything that either hurt John Kerry badly enough to change the dynamic or that helped him enough to push John Kerry off of the game right now." (CNN, 10/14/04)

Associated Press: "I've become more and more disturbed about Bush," said John Barker, 73, of Tampa, Fla., who voted for Bush in 2000, sweated over this year's election for months and finally decided Wednesday night to back Kerry. "I just don't think with everything we're facing, we can have another four years. I'm talking about the economy. I'm talking about Iraq. Bush just didn't give me a good reason for the way things are," the former policeman said. (AP, 10/14/04)

New York Times: "If Mr. Bush loses the election, he will have to blame, at least in part, his own debate performance." (New York Times, 10/13/04)

-- Bush's Expressions Showed His Weakness --

Melinda Henneberger, Newsweek: "I think that tonight, Bush did himself some real harm...he just seems so perpetually surprised... it really undercut his credibility I thought." (MSNBC, 10/14/04)

USA Today: "Bush used language unusually slashing for an incumbent president - especially one whose 47 percent approval rating makes it perilous for him to do anything that might make him seem less appealing and, well, presidential." (USA Today, 10/14/04)

Washington Post: "(Bush was) maintaining a Cheshire cat grin that seemed to imply he did not take Kerry seriously as a challenger and wanted the national viewing audience to know that." (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

people started dumping on Quayle, I suspended judgment until I actually saw him perform in the debate and some interviews, and decided he really was an idiot.

Kerry would have been a better president. He was better on substance in the debate. His demeanor would not have been persuasive to people who think their shouting preacher must be sincere or he wouldn't be shouting, or that the imperial swagger of Bush means he's presidential.

Got to go to work.

Will resume bulletin board death match tonight.

cocky monkeys and think that looks presidential?

You CANNOT be serious. Do you take us for utter fools? WE are not to believe what WE saw because YOU say so - someone who thinks acting like a cocky monkey would work to sway the vote that LIKES cocky monkey swagger?

Ridiculous.

pope either.

I would have been happy with a Kerry equivalent of Reagan saying of Jimmy Carter, "There he goes again..." a not very veiled patronizing swipe.

yours and the revisionist history that Rove is writing.

others would dare like the Iran-Contra hearings, but someone gave him bad advice about his demeanor and how restrained he should be during the debates.

to another country - thinking Italy or Mexico

If you're stinking rich, well, no worries, but if you're relying on a US based income stream, it's no bargain lately.

We are building in Panama after looking at a lot of other countries.

www.panaminfo.com

We really need to change our system to allow for more than two dominant parties.

coalitions of smaller parties.

possibly the only system worse than ours is Britain where the first party to get the most votes runs things, however small their plurality is.

:sarcasm: :boring:

won't take a stand on issues or fight election rigging. We have done our part but too many candidates and those in office have not.

I've seen the Democrats blow the elections in 1980, 1988, 2000, and 2004. Last chance...

See you in November.

For example, we need a secret organization (more likely a secret order, like Opus Dei or the Bene Gesserit in DUNE), devoted to figuring out how to find the weaknesses in those who're raking in all those corporate excess profits, _and ways to siphon it away from them_. And then to doing so.)
A lot of these ways would be perfectly legal. The money could then be used where it could make a further differnece to change the system.

Certainly we can't expect a revolution to succeed at this point, unless we have a way to take over control of the media _first_, before going into the streets.

Just a couple of thoughts.

If the Democrats lose elections it's because people didn't vote for them.

If they don't vote for them, it's because we didn't compel them to. We, like you and I.

Where do people get this insane notion that it's any different than that?

And I might add, I post all the time about getting people involved, even giving people an opportunity to stand up and be counted as people who do that, and the response is minimal. DUers are seldom doers! They can talk up a revolution but won't make phone calls, walk precincts, or hand out flyers and talk to people.

The Republicans were out of power (in Congress) for more than 40 years. They did not have one President between 1932 and 1952.

We keep plugging away until we get there....

There is no "get rich quick" scheme available


I think we will do well this year, possibly even take the house. But I recognize it is probably likely we will still be in the minority. Doesn't mean we are on the wrong track, it just means it takes a long time to generate the kind of change in mindset that will return us to power!

message.

It may have been cynical and they reneged on significant parts like balancing the budget, but people knew what their agenda was and could see how the legislation they proposed supported that agenda.

The Democrats, especially during the Bush years, having taken the opposite tack, and tried to be more like the party in power.

There are many progressive politicians I admire, but enough Democrats are on the corporate payroll to cloud the public perception of what we stand for.

Because what will have to be done is prolonged, persistent and massive civil disobedience until the demands for voter reform ( that the winner must have 50 percent to win and a secure and trustworthy voter system) are enacted by our congress.
If the election is stolen as I believe it will be, then a general strike should be called and a mass sit in in Washington should take place until the demands are met or the troops are called in to shoot us down.
then at least the american people will know that they have a dictatorship and will not be fooled into thinking it is a free country.
But there will be no shooting because we do have some with integrity that will join us and they would never dare to expose themselves in such a manner.
We have a lot of marches and protest now but they are marginalized and ignored, and that is because there is no Civil Disobedience for them to deal with. They simply segregate divide and ignore.

As long as Repub owned corporations are making the machines counting the votes, there will not be a turnover of power from Repubs to Dems.

So how do we get to the point of free and fair elections?


Get in the streets. Big time protests. And I don't think that will happen until the economy tanks.

So, for me, it may be retirement to Panama. And hope the ice melt in Greenland doesn't flood our new island home.

No wonder I've been having nightmares.

:patriot:

I'm with you 100%.

We cannot wait for the next 'election'...it will be too late!


Gold Star Families for Peace will announce a historic hunger strike against the war in Iraq. At 5pm, they will sit down in front of the White House to eat their last meal and hold a press conference before beginning the fast at the same location in the morning of July 4 at 10am.

“We’ve marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush’s ranch. We’ve even gone to jail. Now it’s time to do more,” says peace mom Cindy Sheehan. “While others are celebrating July 4th with barbeques, we’ll be showing our patriotism by putting our bodies on the line to bring our troops home.”

Hundreds of celebrities, veterans, mothers, and concerned citizens across the country will participate in a rolling fast. Strikers include musicians Willie Nelson and Michael Franti, actors Danny Glover, Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, Gold Star parents Cindy Sheehan and Fernando Suarez, legendary faster and comedian Dick Gregory, environmental activist Diane Wilson, Iraq war veteran Geoffrey Millard and Gulf War vet Michael McPherson, labor leader Dolores Huerta

concentration camp victims, but it could galvanize the public more.

:nuke:

If the crooked Congress won't stop taking Wall Street money to subjugate the American worker, it's time for our party to do so unilaterally.
Not one dime from Pfizer or Exxon or MBNA.
Then we can run a real candidate who speaks to the economic fear and anger of the average American.
That cnadidate could not be beaten by any Republican.

pro-choicers, and then continue to do things exactly as we've been doing them.

:sarcasm:

by the reTHUGS. Because WE DEMS all know beyond a doubt that the evil reTHUGS stole 2 elections already. :grr:

p.s. Obviously, I don't like how you framed the question in the first place. And another thing that bugs me: why do you call democrats "THEM"???!!! Shouldn't it be "WE"???!!!

if there's even a hint of impropriety and we lose it then I aim to misbehave. Send me care packages to Gitmo please.

:thumbsup:

Anything special in mind... Or are you okay with the standard chocolate ration?

25 grams more please.

You know there's troops out (See Chuck out by the gate ;) ) there on the perpetual front who'd
kill for more!

No chocolate for you!

I'm much more worried about the election being stolen than about the Dems "screwing up again".

like you sucked out his soul along with his nads.

If not, do so.

Apparently, though, the guy who put it together found those pictures somewhere. He didn't actually do that to any cats.

it is the only option left. Replacing one corporate controlled government with another will only result in a change of propaganda.

of the states on board to opens escrow accounts for taxpayers to put their FIT taxes into only to be released to the US Treasury when election reform and a few other issues are addressed like impeachment proceedings and trials for all those elected officials who have broken their oaths to uphold the Constitution. I wouldn't withhold FICA because Seniors and others rely on their SS and Medicare to survive. If the governors suspended the powers of any federal agencies to collect those taxes, I believe it could be done. Once the money tree source dries up, they will be impotent to do anything including allocating funds to the military who might get really pissed off then.

If we cant get the country onboard after all the deaths, failures, economy for the rich, gas prices doubling since 2000, we wont ever be able to win. Ill move to another country where I can raise my kids in a non fascist country that cares for all its people.

Democrats aren't the big problem, should they lose in 06. If they lose, it doesn't necessarily mean it's because Dems screwed up. It's the corporate media that basically dictates who wins. As much as it is those who count the votes - it's the media's job to tell truth, but they're paid, instead, to lie and spread their mind-controlling, brainwashing propaganda.

If any of you have satellite TV and can watch Link TV, watch a program called Democracy For Sale? It's very illuminating. I knew the media was bad, I knew they were VERY bad - but THIS is a must-see for everyone who cares about our country and about truth.

Cheer up, there's plent of time between now and November...

I get the impression Bush would like that treatment.