Discussion:
Dean's World: Letter To John Perry Barlow From A Pot-Smoking Deadhead Bush Voter
(too old to reply)
DeadAhead71
2004-11-10 17:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Here's an interesting response to those of you still wondering how you
lost the election.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1099986939.shtml


Letter To John Perry Barlow From A Pot-Smoking Deadhead Bush Voter
John Perry Barlow, author of one of my favorite documents on the
Internet ("A Declaration of the Independence of
Cyberspace"http://www.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html) and
perhaps my favorite Grateful Dead song
("Cassidy,"http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/cassidy.html) recently
penned a lengthy piece entitled "Magnanimous
Defeat.http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/11/magnanimous_def.html"
I found myself, as a Bush supporter, alternately bemused by the
stereotypes that Mr. Barlow seems to embody and embrace, and yet moved
by his effort to overcome at least some of them. A passionate Bush
hater, Barlow seems to want to try now to understand his
Bush-supporting fellow Americans better. He seems quite sincere, and
I'm moved by that.

I don't know that he'll read this, but since he seems sincere, and
there may be others like him who are sincere, I'll try to explain what
the cultural divide has looked like from my end these last couple of
years.

For the last two and a half years I have been writing this weblog.
Through no intention of my own I eventually became what some call a
"warblogger," although it's never a label I've embraced all that
strongly. Is this because I'm a Republican? No more than Mr. Barlow.
I'll vote Republican when it suits my purposes and I'll vote for a
Democrat when it suits my purposes and if I don't like any candidate I
won't vote at all. The Democratic Party here in Michigan a couple of
years ago did a damnfool thing and locked voters out of its candidate
selection process, but if they didn't have such idiot rules I'd have
no hesitation about registering Democratic.

Am I a conservative, a "right winger?" Sure, I guess so, if you count
someone who's pro-choice on abortion, is flabbergasted at the
selfishness and mean-spiritedness of anyone who would put someone in
jail for smoking pot, favors gay marriage, supports human rights
organizations, and would love to see a world united in democratic
governments a "conservative right-winger."

I think what bemused me most when reading your missive, Mr. Barlow,
was your description of the young man who was probably popular and on
the football team and supported Bush, while you the nerdy outsider
supported Kerry, and you saw the whole thing through some sort of
50s-vs.-60s lens. Nothing could show me just how insular so many on
the left have become than that. Few of the war supporters I know fit
such stereotypes at all. "Think for yourself, question authority" is
something a lot of us sucked in with our mothers' milk--and by the
way, you know we kids who were born in the 1960s are now in our 30s
and 40s and parents ourselves, right? A lot of us grew up being told
to question authority, and a lot of that authority we now question is
the left-wing orthodoxy of your generation, an orthodoxy many of us
bought into as it was taught to us in school, in the books we read,
and especially in the universities, not to mention in a lot of what we
see out of Hollywood today.

We came to reject a lot of that orthodoxy as we got older and learned
to think better for ourselves--not because we "embraced the
establishment," but because we were questioning the establishment. You
may laugh, but a whole lot of what's "questioning the establishment"
to you seems like the establishment itself to a hell of a lot of
people like me. Culturally, at least.

That being the case, there are are some things I don't see how we can
ever agree on. For example, you seem to unquestioningly accept the
left-wing orthodoxy that the war in Iraq has slaughtered hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis. Where you get such an idea I don't know,
but from where I sit, having talked to both Iraqis and to soldiers
fighting over there, that is, not to put too fine a point on it, A
STEAMING CROCK OF HATE-MONGERING SHIT.

You also, in your missive, speak of watching "Fahrenheit 9/11." I hope
you're aware that that movie uses all the same propaganda techniques
as used by the great Fascist and Stalinist film producers such as
Goebbels and Eisenstein. Indeed, I must tell you that after I finally
watched that film, my hands were literally shaking. Not because of my
great love and devotion to Bush (which I'm sure the left-wing
stereotypers would love to believe) but because I had not seen such
concentrated hatred and dishonest propaganda put to film in my
lifetime. By comparison, Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will seemed
tame. (Yes, yes, parts of it were funny. Leni Riefenstahl had funny
bits in her movies too. So what?)

None of this is because I don't think for myself and question
authority, John. None of it's because I just want to obey and
faithfully believe whatever Bush tells me. It's because I do think for
myself and I question "authorities" who make and distribute
disingenuous hate-propaganda, making themselves hundreds of millions
of dollars throwing raw meat to rage-filled leftists, telling them
what they want to hear regardless of whether there's any real honesty
behind it. I also question university professors, Hollywood
celebrities, and opportunistic politicians who want to tell me that
"Bush lied" simply because it will help them win an election.

Calling someone a liar when you know that maybe he was just wrong is a
form of lie too, by the way.

Oh, and, while this may seem rude, I question the authority of
countercultural icons who seem to want to relive the Vietnam era.

May I suggest to you that after you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 that, in
your quest to try to understand the other side a little better, you
also pick up Fahrenhype 9/11 (http://www.fahrenhype911.com/) or
Celsius 41.1 (http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/) or
Michael Moore Hates America (http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/)?
And consider the remote possibility (unbelievable as it may seem) that
those who made these films are not merely obedient conservatives who
just want to support the President?

Hell, can I suggest that you just look at the previews?

I'll be honest to you: if you cannot look at a movie like Michael
Moore's and see that it is propaganda designed to do nothing but tell
rage-filled leftists what they want to hear, then it's probably
impossible for people like you and I to even have a real conversation,
and we'll have to just go on treating each other like aliens.

Don't think I haven't tried reaching out to folks like you, John. I've
tried many times, and gotten my hand bitten more than once in
response.

I voted for Bush. I'm not just glad of it, I'm proud of it. Not
because I think he's a God. Not because I think it's wrong to question
him. Not because I think you have to agree with him. But because I
thought the Iraq liberation was the right thing to do for America, for
the Iraqi people, and for the world as a whole.

(Well I also think his policies on school choice and Social Security
reform are positive and progressive and will do more to help the poor
in this country than anything Democrats have proposed in the last 35
years. But that's another debate. The war was my real issue, as it was
yours.)

Now I must tell you that, because I have taken my stance on the Iraq
war, I was forced on this weblog to eventually require people to
register before they could leave comments. Why? Because I got tired of
being called a Nazi, a "Bush apologist," a right-wing extremist, a
brown shirt, a fascist, a sellout, and a liar on a daily basis by
those "open-minded" and "thoughtful" leftists who are apparently still
part of your tribe. My family has received death threats from angry
leftists. I realized at some point that I could either take down the
weblog completely, or I could start tossing out people who thought
they had a right to abuse me and my family just because they didn't
like my opinions.

In other words, I've experienced firsthand just how hateful,
intolerant, and irrational you guys can be when someone dares to
question your beliefs. You guys often come off exactly like the
theocratic mullahs and the lock-step fascists you claim to hate (but
which you, oddly enough, don't seem willing to use American power to
try to overthrow).

Of all the people I know who support this war, most of us have
conversations like this with each other all the time:

"Why are the anti-war people so vicious and nasty?"

"Why are the anti-war people so irrational and hateful and smug?"

"How do we get through to them? They just won't listen!"

"Don't you get tired of being called a liar and a fascist? I sure do."

It reached a point for a lot of us that on election day, we were doing
more than just saying "We want to re-elect George Bush." When we
pulled that lever for Bush, we were also just plain saying "FUCK YOU!"

Well Mr. Barlow, you said you wanted to try to understand. You spent a
lot of time in your missive confessing to your anger and your hatred.
Well now I'm telling you: Yup, a whole lot of us saw that. We saw it
real well, and heard it loud and clear. We aren't stupid you know. You
guys treated not just the President but all of us who agreed with his
decisions with absolute contempt, and when we tried to call you out on
it you just got nastier.

Meanwhile we were, many of us, talking to the boys and girls doing
their work over there in Iraq. While some had their doubts, most were
proud of the war effort and cared about the Iraqi people and made
friends with them. (You do know that Bush got more than 70% of the
vote from the National Guadsmen who are supposedly trapped in Bush's
"back door draft," don't you? And that most of the soldiers
interviewed in Michael Moore's movie hate his guts for the way he
twisted their words and quoted them out of context? Did you know about
the families of the fallen that he abused and betrayed just to tell
his twisted story?)

Hellfire, a year and a half ago I played a role in helping to found an
organization to ship toys and medical supplies for soldiers to
distribute to kids over in Iraq. (You can donate to it right here by
the way - http://www.operationgive.org/). Do you know how many lefties
we were able to get to help us with that? Almost none. You guys were
too busy shrieking about the evil BushCo-McRove Machine to actually do
something to help those soldiers and those Iraqis you guys claim to
care so much about.

That, to a lot of us, is the greatest irony you know. All the war
supporters I know--all of them--read and listen to the anti-Bush and
anti-war invective. We're most bemused when we hear your plaintive
wails that we are closed-minded and fearful and zombified and that if
only you'd try harder and be more passionate maybe we'd finally
understand you. Meantime we're listening and we're watching and we're
reading and we're thinking, "Yeah we understand you perfectly. We just
think you're wrong. Why aren't you listening to what we're saying?"

And now, apparently, you sit around thinking, "Well we need those
old-fashioned conservative respect-authority types in this country too
I guess." Hey John? Fuck you. I'm not about obeying authority. I'm not
about being captain of the football team--I don't even LIKE football,
and I never dated any goddamned cheerleaders. I hated those people as
a kid. I was too busy experimenting with drugs, reading books,
noodling in the aisles at Grateful Dead concerts, and trying to get
laid.

I voted for Bush because the war in Iraq was exactly the right war,
for exactly the right reasons, at exactly the right time. Not because
I think you're supposed to believe whatever Bush says, but because I
independently concluded, like a whole lot of other people, that it was
the right thing to do, and that NOT doing it would be a crime against
humanity. And that America and the rest of the world would be safer if
we did it.

And I still think all that.

Do you disagree? Okay. That's fine. That's your right as a human
being. But you guys did more than disagree. A lot of you were just
plain assholes about it. You could have talked to us but instead you
wanted to tell us that Chimpy McSmirk was the new Hitler and a big fat
liar just because you didn't agree with him. It offended the shit out
of us, because we did agree with him and we didn't think he lied (and
most of us still don't). We saw a good, decent, moderate man in Bush
who decided to take a big gamble and do the right thing for both
America and Iraq and finally, finally, finally bring down the monster
Saddam. Which would have been done a long damned time ago if we'd had
any decency as a country.

You don't agree. Fine. You don't have to. But don't think that acting
like an asshole about it gets you my vote. You guys may have whipped a
bunch of dumbass kids into a rage by feeding them Michael Moore style
hate-propaganda, but you equally pissed off a bunch of other folks in
the process who showed up to vote just to spite you guys for being
such mean-spirited, reactionary, paint-by-numbers, bigoted,
closed-minded jerks.

Sorry man, but it's exactly what you looked like from here. We saw
your disappointment when good economic news came out and your almost
desperate desire to deny it. It was written on so many of your faces.
We saw your irritation when good news came out of Iraq. It was obvious
in your tone and your attitude about it. We aren't stupid you know.
You wanted America to fail just so you could take down Shrubbie
McHitler the Dumbass Death Merchant.

But by the way, did you have to back a candidate who couldn't decide
from one day to the next what exactly he thought on any
subject--except that he wouldn't do anything that Bush did? (In other
words, a reactionary?)

In fact Mr. Barlow, for a guy who's so hip to cyberspace, you seem
astonishingly unaware of everyday, ordinary people like her
(http://www.asmallvictory.net/) or him (http://www.vodkapundit.com/)
or him (http://www.indepundit.com/) or her (http://ilyka.mu.nu/) or
her (http://littlemissattila.mu.nu/) or her
(http://www.margilowry.com/) or them (http://site-essential.com/)or
her (http://thepatriette.com/) or her (http://www.redsugar.com/muse/)
or her (http://resplendentmango.blogspot.com/) or her
(http://res-ipsa.the-blinding-white-light.com/) or her
(http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks) or them
(http://www.acepryhill.com/) or him (http://boifromtroy.com/) or her
(http://www.armiesofliberation.com/) or her (http://www.qoae.net/) or
him (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/) or countless other powerful and
interesting voices I know out here in cyberspace. Not an authoritarian
in the bunch. Just people who don't agree with you, and who supported
the liberation of Iraq and most of Bush's war policies. Most of 'em
women, come to think of it, some of 'em queer, and a couple of whom
actually served in that war in Iraq you seem to think is so evil and
murderous. I could point you to countless more voices just like them.

I don't know. Maybe you guys on the left need the stereotyping and the
rage in order to motivate people to the polls. But from where folks
like me stand, it's your ideas that need to be questioned, and it's
you guys who have been on the wrong side of human rights and progress
these last couple of years. It's you guys who are the reactionaries.

That's what people like me have come to think, anyway. It's what a
whole lot of people I know think. Because otherwise, a whole lot of us
are puzzled as to why we can't seem to get through to you. Some of us
just plain gave up, and now just figure we have to work around you
because you won't listen anyway. We tried, we failed, so we just (no
pun intended) moved on.

So. You say you want to understand us. I appreciate that, and
honestly, that's as plain a picture as I can paint for you. Did I miss
something? Is there something important I should understand that I'm
not getting? Is there something in your arguments or beliefs that I'm
just not seeing? Because I feel like I get you guys and your arguments
just fine, that I've spent two and a half years researching your
arguments and trying to tell you why I think you're horribly mistaken,
but that it's you all who won't listen.

So is there any real hope here? I'd like to think there is but I just
don't know.

Posted by Dean
nantuckets finest
2004-11-10 17:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
regarding the war, I sure agree with a hell of a lot of what he wrote.

And much of it goes right to the center of my frustrations with many on the
hard left in this ng.

Do with it what you may.

Mark
Olompali4
2004-11-10 18:48:27 UTC
Permalink
From: mthitch
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
Well the only real integrity this post had was his support for the Iraqi War.
So I guess the "hell of a lot he wrote" that you agree with is voting for Bush
because of the hate thrown at George. Not the issues but to spite a voting
bloc.
nantuckets finest
2004-11-10 19:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Date: 11/10/2004 1:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: mthitch
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
Well the only real integrity this post had was his support for the Iraqi War.
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by the
hatred and bile spewing from the far left. And, while it did not discuss the
issues specifically (except for the Iraq war), it makes his assertions no less
relevant and valid.

Mark
Michael Uman
2004-11-10 19:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Post by Olompali4
From: mthitch
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
Well the only real integrity this post had was his support for the Iraqi War.
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed
by the hatred and bile spewing from the far left. And, while it did not
discuss the issues specifically (except for the Iraq war), it makes his
assertions no less relevant and valid.
Mark
Mark,

And he was blind to the hatred and bile spewing from the right...

Hmmm.... IDIOT!

Good day...
Olompali4
2004-11-10 19:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by the
hatred and bile spewing from the far left. And, while it did not discuss the
issues specifically (except for the Iraq war), it makes his assertions no less
relevant and valid.
Mark
I was repulsed by the hatred right wingers like John Wayne, Al Capp and yes
Gov. Ronald Reagen spewed but I didn't support McGovern because of that. It was
the enviroment, the war and civil rights.
A closer look reveals that the poison really starts spilling from the right.
From McCarthyism to C.R.E.E.P. to COINTELPRO to the Moral Majority to
Evangelical Politics.
My belief is that progressive's have taken the torch and have decided to throw
it back. It may be ugly but how long does one take bullying threats and lies
until you begin swinging back?
Howard Dean for DNC chairman!
leftie
2004-11-10 19:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by the
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
Now there you go again. Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of groups
like the Swift Boat Liars.
nantuckets finest
2004-11-10 20:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Date: 11/10/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by
the
Post by nantuckets finest
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
Now there you go again.
Hey, is Wendy Weir helping you channel Ronnie??

Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of groups
like the Swift Boat Liars.
The swift boat guys obviously have serious issues with John Kerry and they made
their case, believe it or don't, but I never, ever heard them refer to Kerry as
a "moron, chimp, nazi, etc.etc", nor did they refer to his supporters as
ignorant fools who are obviously too stupid to vote. Which is pretty much what
the left has been saying about the 60 million people who voted for Bush. That
is what I find repulsive.

Mark
Andrew Murawa
2004-11-10 21:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Date: 11/10/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by
the
Post by nantuckets finest
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
Now there you go again.
Hey, is Wendy Weir helping you channel Ronnie??
Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of groups
like the Swift Boat Liars.
The swift boat guys obviously have serious issues with John Kerry and they made
their case, believe it or don't, but I never, ever heard them refer to Kerry as
a "moron, chimp, nazi, etc.etc", nor did they refer to his supporters as
ignorant fools who are obviously too stupid to vote. Which is pretty much what
the left has been saying about the 60 million people who voted for Bush.
That
is what I find repulsive.
THAT is more repulsive than a president who sends the sons and daughters of
this country off to a war of choice, built on lies and deceit, failing to
even give them the proper supplies and equipment, ignorning the advice of
many of his top advisors in the process, declared the "mission accomplished
almost 18 months ago, and yet still claims to "support the troops"?
THAT is more repulsive than a president, who in response to the WTC attacks,
declares a "war on terror" and promises to "hunt them down and smoke them
out of their caves", yet failed to commit the necessary troops to capturing
Osama bin Laden when they had him trapped, instead relying on Afghani
warlords to get the job done? More repulsive than a president who, in the
midst of this war on terror, failed to properly fund security at our
nation's ports, borders and airports, let nuclear material and knowlesge
slip out of Russia, by failing to properly fund efforts to secure that
material and knowledge, and yet we are told by Cheney during that campaign,
that unless Bush was re-elected, "we would get hit again?"
More repulsive than a US president opposing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty?
More repulsive than the attacks on the Constitution of the country in the
form of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department and the Patriot Act?
More repulsive than the stench of corruption wafting out of this
administration in the form of Haliburton and Enron and gifts and favors to
and from Saudi Arabia and government-approved "scientists" with a political
axe to grind?
More repulsive than turning a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion
deficit? More repulsive than huge tax cuts for the presidents friends and
business associates, while giving the working classes a couple hundred bucks
to spend on something they don't really need? More repulsive than
underfunding federally-mandated state government programs, causing state
budget crises across the land? More repulsive than a $7 trillion national
debt? More repulsive than all but eliminating any enforcement of corporate
tax laws while increasing tax audits on the working classes?
More repulsive than underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act and then
claiming education as one of your strengths?
More repulsive than damaging the hopes of those suffering from Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, diabetes, and dozens of other diseases by restricting research
into emryonic stem-cell research based on a combination of bad science and
bad religion?
More repulsive than massive decreases in enforcement of clean air standards
for energy producers? Than the elimination of protections on public lands
and the rollbacks of every positive thing Clinton did for the environment?

If so, then I can certainly understand why you voted for Bush... Otherwise,
well, it's all been said before...
Michael Uman
2004-11-10 21:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Murawa
Post by nantuckets finest
Post by leftie
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by
the
Post by nantuckets finest
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
Now there you go again.
Hey, is Wendy Weir helping you channel Ronnie??
Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
Post by leftie
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of
groups like the Swift Boat Liars.
The swift boat guys obviously have serious issues with John Kerry and they made
their case, believe it or don't, but I never, ever heard them refer to Kerry as
a "moron, chimp, nazi, etc.etc", nor did they refer to his supporters
as ignorant fools who are obviously too stupid to vote. Which is
pretty much what
the left has been saying about the 60 million people who voted for
Bush. That
is what I find repulsive.
THAT is more repulsive than a president who sends the sons and daughters
of this country off to a war of choice, built on lies and deceit,
failing to even give them the proper supplies and equipment, ignorning
the advice of many of his top advisors in the process, declared the
"mission accomplished almost 18 months ago, and yet still claims to
"support the troops"? THAT is more repulsive than a president, who in
response to the WTC attacks, declares a "war on terror" and promises to
"hunt them down and smoke them out of their caves", yet failed to commit
the necessary troops to capturing Osama bin Laden when they had him
trapped, instead relying on Afghani warlords to get the job done? More
repulsive than a president who, in the midst of this war on terror,
failed to properly fund security at our nation's ports, borders and
airports, let nuclear material and knowlesge slip out of Russia, by
failing to properly fund efforts to secure that material and knowledge,
and yet we are told by Cheney during that campaign, that unless Bush was
re-elected, "we would get hit again?" More repulsive than a US president
opposing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
More repulsive than the attacks on the Constitution of the country in
the form of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department and the Patriot
Act? More repulsive than the stench of corruption wafting out of this
administration in the form of Haliburton and Enron and gifts and favors
to and from Saudi Arabia and government-approved "scientists" with a
political axe to grind?
More repulsive than turning a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion
deficit? More repulsive than huge tax cuts for the presidents friends
and business associates, while giving the working classes a couple
hundred bucks to spend on something they don't really need? More
repulsive than underfunding federally-mandated state government
programs, causing state budget crises across the land? More repulsive
than a $7 trillion national debt? More repulsive than all but
eliminating any enforcement of corporate tax laws while increasing tax
audits on the working classes? More repulsive than underfunding the No
Child Left Behind Act and then claiming education as one of your
strengths? More repulsive than damaging the hopes of those suffering
from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and dozens of other diseases by
restricting research into emryonic stem-cell research based on a
combination of bad science and bad religion?
More repulsive than massive decreases in enforcement of clean air
standards for energy producers? Than the elimination of protections on
public lands and the rollbacks of every positive thing Clinton did for
the environment?
If so, then I can certainly understand why you voted for Bush...
Otherwise, well, it's all been said before...
RIGHT ON!!!!

You nailed it on the head... This administration is repulsive and yet
people were able to close their eyes and see what Bush wanted them to see...

GREAT WAR PRESIDENT MY ASS!!!!
minnehaha
2004-11-11 04:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Murawa
Post by nantuckets finest
Date: 11/10/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by
the
Post by nantuckets finest
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
Now there you go again.
Hey, is Wendy Weir helping you channel Ronnie??
Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of groups
like the Swift Boat Liars.
The swift boat guys obviously have serious issues with John Kerry and they made
their case, believe it or don't, but I never, ever heard them refer to Kerry as
a "moron, chimp, nazi, etc.etc", nor did they refer to his supporters as
ignorant fools who are obviously too stupid to vote. Which is pretty much what
the left has been saying about the 60 million people who voted for Bush.
That
is what I find repulsive.
THAT is more repulsive than a president who sends the sons and daughters
of this country off to a war of choice, built on lies and deceit, failing
to even give them the proper supplies and equipment, ignorning the advice
of many of his top advisors in the process, declared the "mission
accomplished almost 18 months ago, and yet still claims to "support the
troops"?
THAT is more repulsive than a president, who in response to the WTC
attacks, declares a "war on terror" and promises to "hunt them down and
smoke them out of their caves", yet failed to commit the necessary troops
to capturing Osama bin Laden when they had him trapped, instead relying on
Afghani warlords to get the job done? More repulsive than a president who,
in the midst of this war on terror, failed to properly fund security at
our nation's ports, borders and airports, let nuclear material and
knowlesge slip out of Russia, by failing to properly fund efforts to
secure that material and knowledge, and yet we are told by Cheney during
that campaign, that unless Bush was re-elected, "we would get hit again?"
More repulsive than a US president opposing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty?
More repulsive than the attacks on the Constitution of the country in the
form of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department and the Patriot Act?
More repulsive than the stench of corruption wafting out of this
administration in the form of Haliburton and Enron and gifts and favors to
and from Saudi Arabia and government-approved "scientists" with a
political axe to grind?
More repulsive than turning a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion
deficit? More repulsive than huge tax cuts for the presidents friends and
business associates, while giving the working classes a couple hundred
bucks to spend on something they don't really need? More repulsive than
underfunding federally-mandated state government programs, causing state
budget crises across the land? More repulsive than a $7 trillion national
debt? More repulsive than all but eliminating any enforcement of corporate
tax laws while increasing tax audits on the working classes?
More repulsive than underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act and then
claiming education as one of your strengths?
More repulsive than damaging the hopes of those suffering from
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and dozens of other diseases by
restricting research into emryonic stem-cell research based on a
combination of bad science and bad religion?
More repulsive than massive decreases in enforcement of clean air
standards for energy producers? Than the elimination of protections on
public lands and the rollbacks of every positive thing Clinton did for the
environment?
If so, then I can certainly understand why you voted for Bush...
Otherwise, well, it's all been said before...
shut up.
Ray Lee
2004-11-12 19:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by leftie
Date: 11/10/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by nantuckets finest
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by
the
Post by nantuckets finest
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
<snip>
Post by leftie
Selective revulsion, I guess, since there is
never any similiar revulsion for "the hatred and bile spewing" of groups
like the Swift Boat Liars.
The swift boat guys obviously have serious issues with John Kerry and they made
their case, believe it or don't, but I never, ever heard them refer to Kerry as
a "moron, chimp, nazi, etc.etc"
No - the Swift Boaters instead repeatedly smeared Kerry not only as a
psychotically narcissistic liar who could not be trusted to lead, but
also as a flat-out traitor to his country. Disgusting.

And you do remember the years of continual vicious personal attacks
from the Right on Clinton when he was president, don't you?
Post by leftie
nor did they refer to his supporters as
ignorant fools who are obviously too stupid to vote.
Actually one of the Swift Boat book's authors did exactly that - and
repeatedly - at FreeRepublic.com.

And then of course there's Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage,
etc etc etc, and all of their imitators and minions - who have for
many years now portrayed liberals as stupid and moreover treasonous.
Post by leftie
Which is pretty much what
the left has been saying about the 60 million people who voted for Bush. That
is what I find repulsive.
Selective revulsion indeed.

Ray
Lady Chatterly
2004-11-10 21:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Date: 11/10/2004 1:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: mthitch
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
Well the only real integrity this post had was his support for the Iraqi War.
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by the
hatred and bile spewing from the far left. And, while it did not discuss the
issues specifically (except for the Iraq war), it makes his assertions no less
relevant and valid.
Act in the valley so that you need not fear those who stand on the
hill.
Post by nantuckets finest
Mark
You don't seem very certain.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Oh, look everyone, joooooooooody is chummy with the chatterly -
troll....." -- Rhyanon
Mike Z. Helm
2004-11-15 03:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Date: 11/10/2004 1:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: mthitch
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
Well the only real integrity this post had was his support for the Iraqi War.
The entire blog was a fine explanation of why many of us are so repulsed by the
hatred and bile spewing from the far left.
I agreed with many of his views - I consider myself conservate, but not
right wing, I'm pro-choice, pro-pot-legalization, but I still don't buy
that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism, but I might have considered
voting for him had he not lied like a rug.

I had the opportunity to witness first-hand how he governed.

I voted for George W. Bush (twice) before I voted against George W. Bush
(twice).

Therefore, while you can make a case that some people blindly hate Bush,
if my attitude towards him can be correctly described as hatred, it is
not blind.

You can't simply write off all criticism of his policies as hate.
Post by nantuckets finest
And, while it did not discuss the
issues specifically (except for the Iraq war), it makes his assertions no less
relevant and valid.
Mark
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
DGDevin
2004-11-11 22:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by nantuckets finest
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
regarding the war, I sure agree with a hell of a lot of what he wrote.
It was an interesting read. I still think the invasion of Iraq was an
incredibly bad idea, but the parts about liberal orthodoxy sure rang a few
bells. Question authority, unless it's Liberal Establishment Authority, in
which case questioning it means you have to be a fascist.
Ray Lee
2004-11-12 19:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by nantuckets finest
Man, I really enjoyed that, and while I don't agree with all his points
regarding the war, I sure agree with a hell of a lot of what he wrote.
It was an interesting read. I still think the invasion of Iraq was an
incredibly bad idea, but the parts about liberal orthodoxy sure rang a few
bells. Question authority, unless it's Liberal Establishment Authority, in
which case questioning it means you have to be a fascist.
You misspelled 'far left' with 'liberal'.

And/or: 'far right' with 'liberal', and 'communist' with 'fascist'.

HTH,
Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-14 05:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
You misspelled 'far left' with 'liberal'.
The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left slips
its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back they find
they've been saddled with some goofball platform that alienates more than
half the voters, resulting in the Republicans winning the White House and
the Congress, again. So until you "liberals" can put your wingnut faction
on a shorter leash and get your platform in sync with what the bulk of the
populace can stomach, then don't complain that the rest of us can't tell the
difference between you and your more radical cousins.
Ray Lee
2004-11-14 21:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda
Isn't the conservative agenda allegedly in large measure to control
federal spending, and also to support states' rights?
Post by DGDevin
, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left slips
its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back they find
they've been saddled with some goofball platform that alienates more than
half the voters
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?

Also: what is your opinion of the part of the Republican platform
wherein they not only call for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage
but also denounce legal recognition or benefits for gay unions?

Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-16 06:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Isn't the conservative agenda allegedly in large measure to control
federal spending, and also to support states' rights?
Yup, which is why so many conservatives dislike much of what the Bush
administration has done, and why they resent wingnuts like Ashcroft being
called " conservative" when "radical" would be a better label.
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
While I wouldn't bother to oppose gay marriage (why should only
heterosexuals suffer that particular fate?) it is silly to pretend that many
Americans don't have deep reservations on that subject. They also have a
problem with the idea that *their* firearms might be the ones the govt. is
eyeballing as opposed to those used by criminals. They're also concerned
about defense and security, and they traditionally associate the Dems with
reduced spending there. Independence from foreign influence might also be
said to be something an awful lot of Americans care about, in the sense that
they don't think the President should sit around waiting for the UN to give
its permission for the U.S. to defend itself.

Now, there are obviously a lot of counters to all those points, like Kerry
didn't say he was in favor of gay marriage and most Americans want more
effective gun control laws and at least half of them think Iraq was a
blunder and probably half or more don't want America to act like a cowboy
and so on. But you have to consider that we are talking about an aggregate
of opinions on a range of issues by people who don't all fit into the
pigeonholes you might want to assign to them, and the bottom line is when
Americans decided which party they could trust based on their gut instincts,
Kerry and the Dems lost. Incredible as it might seem to the "progressive"
mind, that's what happened, more than half the voters are more worried about
what the Dems would do than they were about the Bush admin's rather
significant blunders. You can laugh at that or curse at it or just try to
shovel dirt over it and pretend it didn't happen, but you'd only be fooling
yourself.

And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech in NY,
either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a radical
agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think is a safer party
to Washington. And please note that I'm not even *agreeing* with any of
these beliefs, I'm merely pointing out the brutal reality of the situation,
I suggest that although you don't have to like it, you should be able to see
it when you look at it. And before you dismiss the election as the result
of 51% of the people being morons, remember that these same "morons" gave
Bill Clinton two terms when he was smart enough to shove the Democratic
party back towards the center, either the Dems buy a clue and follow his
lead, or they should get used to being out of power for the foreseeable
future. Seriously, what do you think a Hillary/? ticket would do against a
McCain/Powell or McCain/Giuliani ticket? Talk about red states.
Post by Ray Lee
Also: what is your opinion of the part of the Republican platform
wherein they not only call for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage
but also denounce legal recognition or benefits for gay unions?
I doubt that Bush thinks he would ever get such an amendment passed, I think
he was pandering to his radical evangelical faction. Legal benefits for
civil unions or whatever are coming whether the federal govt. likes it or
not, just as the U.S. drug companies' exploitive monopoly is starting to
crack, they can't roll back the tide on these things.
Ray Lee
2004-11-16 16:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Post by DGDevin
The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda
Isn't the conservative agenda allegedly in large measure to control
federal spending, and also to support states' rights?
Yup, which is why so many conservatives dislike much of what the Bush
administration has done, and why they resent wingnuts like Ashcroft being
called " conservative" when "radical" would be a better label.
And so to paraphrase what you had just posted:

"The trouble with conservatives is they can't maintain control of
their own agenda."
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
While I wouldn't bother to oppose gay marriage (why should only
heterosexuals suffer that particular fate?) it is silly to pretend that many
Americans don't have deep reservations on that subject.
Supporting gay marriage is not in the Democratic Party platform.
Post by DGDevin
They also have a
problem with the idea that *their* firearms might be the ones the govt. is
eyeballing as opposed to those used by criminals.
Taking away peoples' ability to own basic firearms is not in the
Democratic Party platform.
Post by DGDevin
They're also concerned
about defense and security, and they traditionally associate the Dems with
reduced spending there. Independence from foreign influence might also be
said to be something an awful lot of Americans care about, in the sense that
they don't think the President should sit around waiting for the UN to give
its permission for the U.S. to defend itself.
"Sitting around waiting for the UN to give its permission for the U.S.
to defend itself" is not in the Democratic Party platform.
Post by DGDevin
Now, there are obviously a lot of counters to all those points, like Kerry
didn't say he was in favor of gay marriage and most Americans want more
effective gun control laws and at least half of them think Iraq was a
blunder and probably half or more don't want America to act like a cowboy
and so on.
Bingo. Which is to say the Democratic party platform has not been
"saddled" with the things you list above.
Post by DGDevin
But you have to consider that we are talking about an aggregate
of opinions on a range of issues by people who don't all fit into the
pigeonholes you might want to assign to them, and
What the Democrats have to consider is that the Republicans and the
minions in the right-wing echo chamber do a damn good job of
distorting what the Democratic platform actually is, and that the
Democrats have not been effective at countering that distortion. And
that moreover as Clinton pointed out the Democrats "need a clear
national message." [1]
Post by DGDevin
the bottom line is when
Americans decided which party they could trust based on their gut instincts,
Kerry and the Dems lost.
In my view the Dems lost because of several things, notably including:
1) Bush is a sitting president during wartime - which is very
difficult to take down under any circumstance; 2) BushCo played the
terror/fear card for all it's poltically worth, which is a lot, 3) Via
repetition ad nauseum BushCo managed to smear Kerry as a
"flip-flopper" and "soft on terror" in the eyes of much of the voting
public that didn't pay close enough attention to Kerry and Bush's
actual record; and 4) BushCo energized the Christian right with
visions of suppressing homosexuality, overturning Roe v. Wade, and
continuing as the most pro-Likud government in U.S. history.
Post by DGDevin
And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech in NY,
either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a radical
agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think is a safer party
to Washington.
Where did you get that impression? That's not how the New York Post
reported what Clinton said in that speech. [1]
Post by DGDevin
Seriously, what do you think a Hillary/? ticket would do against a
McCain/Powell or McCain/Giuliani ticket?
Four years is a long way away to make predictions about these sorts of
things, but if I had to guess right now I'd say that Hillary won't
even get the Democratic nomination, let alone win against either of
those moderate Republican tickets. That said I'd also guess that
there won't be a McCain/Powell or McCain/Giuliani ticket - much too
moderate for the current Republican party.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Also: what is your opinion of the part of the Republican platform
wherein they not only call for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage
but also denounce legal recognition or benefits for gay unions?
I doubt that Bush thinks he would ever get such an amendment passed, I think
he was pandering to his radical evangelical faction.
So to echo your wording, do you agree that "the far right slipped its
own mix tape into the stereo, and when the conservatives came back
they found they've been saddled with a goofball position in their
platform that alienates more than half the voters"?
Post by DGDevin
Legal benefits for
civil unions or whatever are coming whether the federal govt. likes it or
not ... they can't roll back the tide on these things.
Eventually, I agree - because I believe that the majority of the
American people will eventually agree with the Constitution that
everyone should have equal treatment under the law.

(14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall... deny to any person within its juristiction the equal
protection of the laws.")

That said it is currently the official position of Republican Party
platform to oppose equal treatment for gays under the law, and 8
states just passed laws that not only outlaw gay marriage but also
civil unions. And moreover the Republicans of course now control the
Executive and Legislative branches, as well as much of the Judicial
branch (and with more control Judicial of the branch to come soon).
So unless so-called (by anti-gay conservatives, anyway) "activist"
judges do what our Founding Fathers intended them to do and protect
the Constitutional rights of minority factions, equal legal rights for
gays won't be granted to gays any time soon.

Ray




[1]
___________________

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first
comments on
President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine"
about
the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."
Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing
issue of
gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put
on the
ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden
in the
final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they
didn't want to
"change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national
security,
Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York
Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism
fears, as did
suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security
moms of
2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than
Republicans,
the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who
were
already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president — whose wife Hillary is
already
being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 —
said
Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and .
. . whine
about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat
how they
were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and
family,
doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this
without one
big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a
theological
message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and
called for an
end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in
September, gave
Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great
organization and
great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less
dependence on
foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a
great
opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in
conflict," he
said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an
Israeli-Palestinian
peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic
fundamentalist
terrorism
DGDevin
2004-11-17 09:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
"The trouble with conservatives is they can't maintain control of
their own agenda."
Ha! Well done.
Post by Ray Lee
Supporting gay marriage is not in the Democratic Party platform.
Quote me saying it is.
Post by Ray Lee
Taking away peoples' ability to own basic firearms is not in the
Democratic Party platform.
Even if true, and I think that's a bit of a stretch, so what? Clinton
pointed out the Dems are getting slammed by the *perceptions* of the
majority of voters, and considering that Kerry votes for every proposed bill
making firearms laws harsher, that particular perception seems pretty solid.
And what is this "basic firearms" business? That's the way Britain and
Canada and Australia went, first they were only going after the really
dangerous guns, year by year the list got longer and longer until your
grandfather's lever-action deer rifle he bought in 1952 qualified as an
insane assault weapon and had to be turned in. Who gets to decide what is
"basic," and what's to keep them from expanding that definition every time
the mood is on them? The Constitution? I don't recall the 2nd Amendment
saying anything about "basic" firearms.
Post by Ray Lee
"Sitting around waiting for the UN to give its permission for the U.S.
to defend itself" is not in the Democratic Party platform.
You keep saying stuff like that as if it was relevant to this discussion....
Post by Ray Lee
Bingo. Which is to say the Democratic party platform has not been
"saddled" with the things you list above.
Oh, I see, so last Nov. 2nd, that was mind-control beams from the Saucer
People? Wake up.
Post by Ray Lee
So to echo your wording, do you agree that "the far right slipped its
own mix tape into the stereo, and when the conservatives came back
they found they've been saddled with a goofball position in their
platform that alienates more than half the voters"?
Except for the part you missed, the Republicans won, when it happens to the
Dems, they lose. But that is an interesting point, when given a choice
between too conservative and too liberal, the people keep choosing the
former.
Post by Ray Lee
(14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall... deny to any person within its juristiction the equal
protection of the laws.")
So you figure anyone demanding to be allowed four wives because of their
religion has it made sooner or later huh?
Post by Ray Lee
Post by Ray Lee
So unless so-called (by anti-gay conservatives, anyway) "activist"
judges do what our Founding Fathers intended them to do and protect
the Constitutional rights of minority factions, equal legal rights for
gays won't be granted to gays any time soon.
Uh, don't rely too much on those founding fathers, the nation they
established was quite happy with slavery and didn't give women the vote,
people tend to forget that part....
Ray Lee
2004-11-17 22:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
While I wouldn't bother to oppose gay marriage (why should only
heterosexuals suffer that particular fate?) it is silly to pretend that many
Americans don't have deep reservations on that subject.
Supporting gay marriage is not in the Democratic Party platform.
Quote me saying it is.
Ok, let's take this one again from the top:

So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Taking away peoples' ability to own basic firearms is not in the
Democratic Party platform.
Even if true, and I think that's a bit of a stretch, so what? Clinton
pointed out the Dems are getting slammed by the *perceptions* of the
majority of voters
Exactly my point: we're talking here about what some people *perceive*
to be - and not what actually *is* - in the Democratic platform.
Post by DGDevin
and considering that Kerry votes for every proposed bill
making firearms laws harsher, that particular perception seems pretty solid.
Kerry repeatedly made clear that he supports the right of individuals
to own guns, and nothing in his record or actions undermines the
veracity of said declaration.
Post by DGDevin
And what is this "basic firearms" business?
Somewhere in the arms continuum between water pistols and nuclear
weapons the vast majority of Americans believe that individuals should
not and do not have the right own a given class of weaponry. For
Kerry the types of weapons that individuals should not own include
AK-47s and similar weaponry; to that end Kerry supported the assault
weapons ban. (Bush repeatedly declared his support for the assault
weapons ban as well, though he did nothing to stop its demise at the
hands of Tom DeLay et. al.).
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
"Sitting around waiting for the UN to give its permission for the U.S.
to defend itself" is not in the Democratic Party platform.
You keep saying stuff like that as if it was relevant to this discussion....
You keep ignoring that I asked you, in response to your
unsubstantiated assertion that liberals have "been saddled with some
goofball platform that alienates more than half the voters," to
specify exactly what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters."
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Bingo. Which is to say the Democratic party platform has not been
"saddled" with the things you list above.
Oh, I see, so last Nov. 2nd, that was mind-control beams from the Saucer
People?
From my previous post:

What the Democrats have to consider is that the Republicans and their
minions in the right-wing echo chamber do a damn good job of
distorting what the Democratic platform actually is, and that the
Democrats have not been effective at countering that distortion.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So to echo your wording, do you agree that "the far right slipped its
own mix tape into the stereo, and when the conservatives came back
they found they've been saddled with a goofball position in their
platform that alienates more than half the voters"?
Except for the part you missed, the Republicans won, when it happens to the
Dems, they lose.
The part you missed is that you haven't specified a single "goofball"
issue in the Dems' platform "that alienates more than half the
voters."
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
(14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.")
So you figure anyone demanding to be allowed four wives because of their
religion has it made sooner or later huh?
So how does equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment lead
to people being "allowed four wives because of their religion"?
(Hint: It doesn't.)
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So unless so-called (by anti-gay conservatives, anyway) "activist"
judges do what our Founding Fathers intended them to do and protect
the Constitutional rights of minority factions, equal legal rights for
gays won't be granted to gays any time soon.
Uh, don't rely too much on those founding fathers
# Uh, yeah, who needs the Constitution, the checks and balances of the
three federal branches of power, and the protection of Constitutional
rights of minorities from "the tyranny of the majority" anyway? #
Post by DGDevin
the nation they
established was quite happy with slavery
Not true. Even then slavery was a deeply contentious issue, and the
most prominent of our founding fathers correctly understood that the
institution of slavery was immoral and a very serious problem and
threat to the nation.

"No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only
do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly
foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the
existence of our union."
- George Washington.

So to correctly re-phrase your declaration:

: the nation that the founding fathers established allowed
: slavery to continue and didn't give women the vote

The founding fathers also allowed for the Constitution to be amended
as the nation evolved; hence the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.

Ray




______________________________

"Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its
very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes
open a source of serious evils."
- Benjamin Franklin

"[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a
view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof
of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself
generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair
of seeing it. Some petitions were presented to the Assembly, at its
last Session, for the abolition of slavery, but they could scarcely
obtain a reading. To set them afloat at once would, I really believe,
be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it
certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected."
- George Washington, in a letter to Lafayette

"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the
eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I
have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ...
abhorrence."
- John Adams

"I am not apt to despairing, yet I see not how we are to disengage
ourself from that deplorable entanglement [slavery], we have the wolf
by the ear & feel the danger of holding or letting loose.... I shall
not live to see it but those who come after us will be wiser than we
are, for light is spreading and man improving. To that advancement I
look, and to the dispensations of an all-wise and all-powerful
providence to devise the means of effecting what is right."
- Thomas Jefferson

"American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in
enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in
defiance of those of their own country. The same just and benevolent
motives which produced interdiction in force against this criminal
conduct will doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means
of suppressing the evil."
- James Madison
DGDevin
2004-11-18 10:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Exactly my point: we're talking here about what some people *perceive*
to be - and not what actually *is* - in the Democratic platform.
And where do they get those perceptions from? When they see their local
police prevented from doing drunk driving checkstops because they are
catching too many illegal aliens, is it more likely that a Rep. or Dem.
politician has arranged that? When some of their state legislators want to
give illegal aliens drivers licenses identical to citizen's licenses, is
there an "R" or a "D" after those legislators' names? When they see
decreased defense spending, is there a Rep. or a Dem. in the White House?
When they see a mayor illegally issuing gay marriage permits, is that mayor
a Rep. or a Dem.? When a judge rules that the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional because is has the word "God" in it, is that judge a Rep.
or a Dem. appointee?

Now here's where you say that none of those things are official Democratic
Party Platform so therefore they don't count. Cool, you go on believing
that, more than half the voters appear to feel otherwise, and you can try to
write that off as Karl Rove putting mind control drugs into their breakfast
cereal if you like....
Post by Ray Lee
Kerry repeatedly made clear that he supports the right of individuals
to own guns, and nothing in his record or actions undermines the
veracity of said declaration.
Horsecrap, his voting record speaks for itself.
Post by Ray Lee
Bush repeatedly declared his support for the assault
weapons ban as well, though he did nothing to stop its demise at the
hands of Tom DeLay et. al.).
Irrelevant, even Feinstein grudgingly admitted there weren't enough votes to
stop that from happening, a probable tie in the Sen. and certain defeat in
the House. She just wanted Bush to go through the motions so the NRA would
be pissed off, wasting Congressional time on something she knew was going to
fail anyway, Bush had nothing to do with it.
Post by Ray Lee
The part you missed is that you haven't specified a single "goofball"
issue in the Dems' platform "that alienates more than half the
voters."
Considering that a Rep. in still in the White House and the Congress is
under even more complete Rep. control, your continued claim that more than
half the voters are not alienated from the Dem. Party is beginning to sound
kind of sad.
Post by Ray Lee
So how does equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment lead
to people being "allowed four wives because of their religion"?
(Hint: It doesn't.)
I wanna marry more than one person at the same time, my religion allows it,
how does allowing marriage only between two people not give rights to those
people that I am denied? How can you justify this Judeo-Christian bias in
your laws? Who is harmed by me marrying two, three or four woman all at
once, or men for that matter, or barnyard animals if it comes to that? Why
am I persecuted by your unjust and unequal laws?
Post by Ray Lee
Not true. Even then slavery was a deeply contentious issue, and the
most prominent of our founding fathers correctly understood that the
institution of slavery was immoral and a very serious problem and
threat to the nation.
Oh man, what a fantasy, some of "the most prominent" were also slave owners,
slavery apparently wasn't immoral enough for them to sacrifice their profits
from the existing arrangement. Oh they certainly spoke many fine words
about the evils of slavery, but how many of them freed their slaves, worked
to end slavery, stopped laws that in fact protected that loathsome practice?
Talk is cheap. But now that you mention it, slavery was finally ended, by a
Republican....
JimK
2004-11-18 14:48:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:22:09 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Exactly my point: we're talking here about what some people *perceive*
to be - and not what actually *is* - in the Democratic platform.
And where do they get those perceptions from? When they see their local
police prevented from doing drunk driving checkstops because they are
catching too many illegal aliens, is it more likely that a Rep. or Dem.
politician has arranged that? When some of their state legislators want to
give illegal aliens drivers licenses identical to citizen's licenses, is
there an "R" or a "D" after those legislators' names? When they see
decreased defense spending, is there a Rep. or a Dem. in the White House?
When they see a mayor illegally issuing gay marriage permits, is that mayor
a Rep. or a Dem.? When a judge rules that the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional because is has the word "God" in it, is that judge a Rep.
or a Dem. appointee?
Now here's where you say that none of those things are official Democratic
Party Platform so therefore they don't count. Cool, you go on believing
that, more than half the voters appear to feel otherwise, and you can try to
write that off as Karl Rove putting mind control drugs into their breakfast
cereal if you like....
<snip>

It's amazing how you can effortlessly change arguments in midstream.
Now you say the party platform doesn't matter. Yet here's your post
where you raised the party platform issue:

"The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left
slips its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back
they find they've been saddled with some goofball platform that
alienates more than half the voters, resulting in the Republicans
winning the White House and the Congress, again. So until you
"liberals" can put your wingnut faction on a shorter leash and get
your platform in sync with what the bulk of the populace can stomach,
then don't complain that the rest of us can't tell the difference
between you and your more radical cousins."

I guess your strategy is that it's tough to argue with a moving
target.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-19 11:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
I guess your strategy is that it's tough to argue with a moving
target.
JimK
I understand, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

You wanna pretend the meaning isn't clear, you wanna pretend more than half
the voters don't trust the Dems not to mess with their core values, you
think Clinton got it all wrong? Cool, you go with that.
Ray Lee
2004-11-19 17:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
It's amazing how you can effortlessly change arguments in midstream.
HRYK.
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I guess your strategy is that it's tough to argue with a moving
target.
JimK
I understand, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
And the target keeps moving...
Post by DGDevin
You wanna pretend the meaning isn't clear, you wanna pretend more than half
the voters don't trust the Dems not to mess with their core values, you
think Clinton got it all wrong?
Clinton got it right.[1] You however got what Clinton said wrong:

"And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech in NY,
either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a radical
agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think is a safer party
to Washington."

HTH,
Ray



[1]
___________________

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first
comments on
President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine"
about
the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."
Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing
issue of
gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put
on the
ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden
in the
final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they
didn't want to
"change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national
security,
Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York
Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism
fears, as did
suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security
moms of
2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than
Republicans,
the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who
were
already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president - whose wife Hillary is
already
being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 -
said
Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and .
. . whine
about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat
how they
were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and
family,
doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this
without one
big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a
theological
message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and
called for an
end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in
September, gave
Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great
organization and
great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less
dependence on
foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a
great
opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in
conflict," he
said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an
Israeli-Palestinian
peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic
fundamentalist
terrorism
DGDevin
2004-11-20 23:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
And the target keeps moving...
The way you shoot I don't have much to worry about....
Richard Morris
2004-11-20 23:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
And the target keeps moving...
The way you shoot I don't have much to worry about....
Probably your should be worried about the quality of your intellect.

R.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
DGDevin
2004-11-21 21:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Morris
Probably your should be worried about the quality of your intellect.
You're like a piece of toilet paper stuck to my shoe....
Ray Lee
2004-11-18 17:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Exactly my point: we're talking here about what some people *perceive*
to be - and not what actually *is* - in the Democratic platform.
And where do they get those perceptions from?
So what part of:

What the Democrats have to consider is that the Republicans and their
minions in the right-wing echo chamber do a damn good job of
distorting what the Democratic platform actually is, and that the
Democrats have not been effective at countering that distortion.

did you not read or not understand?

They get those perceptions from many other things and 'sources' as
well - including people like you, who spew out a constant stream of
bullshit that distorts the Democratic position.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Kerry repeatedly made clear that he supports the right of individuals
to own guns, and nothing in his record or actions undermines the
veracity of said declaration.
Horsecrap, his voting record speaks for itself.
Yes, it does. And nowhere in his voting record has Kerry undermined
the ability of law-abiding individuals to own guns.
Post by DGDevin
And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech in NY,
either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a radical
agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think is a safer party
to Washington.
After I pointed out to you that that's not how the New York Post
reported what Clinton said in that speech [1] you avoided answering
where you got that distorted impression. So -where- did you get that
impression, DG? From someone on the internet who routinely twists and
distorts the truth, perhaps?

Here's another example:

"The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left
slips its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back
they find they've been saddled with some goofball platform that
alienates more than half the voters, resulting in the Republicans
winning the White House and the Congress, again. So until you
"liberals" can put your wingnut faction on a shorter leash and get
your platform in sync with what the bulk of the populace can stomach,
then don't complain that the rest of us can't tell the difference
between you and your more radical cousins."

You declare here that there is "goofball" stuff in the "platform" -
that is a distortion of the truth, and that's exactly what I've been
calling you on here. And so what do you do? Rather than simply admit
that you overstated your case you instead repeatedly attempt to change
the subject.

Not that I'm at all surprised. A guy who when called on for example
incorrectly declaring that Bush won by a bigger margin than Clinton
did, rather than simply admit his obvious mistake, instead repeatedly
insists against all rationality that the person who called him on it
was 'mistaken' is not someone who readily admits when he's wrong.
Post by DGDevin
Now here's where you say that none of those things are official Democratic
Party Platform so therefore they don't count.
Of course they have an adverse impact on some peoples' perceptions of
the Democratic party - but none of those things are in the "platform".
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
The part you missed is that you haven't specified a single "goofball"
issue in the Dems' platform "that alienates more than half the
voters."
Considering that a Rep. in still in the White House and the Congress is
under even more complete Rep. control, your continued claim that more than
half the voters are not alienated from the Dem. Party is beginning to sound
kind of sad.
So what part of:

What the Democrats have to consider is that the Republicans and their
minions in the right-wing echo chamber do a damn good job of
distorting what the Democratic platform actually is, and that the
Democrats have not been effective at countering that distortion.

did you not read or not understand?

You OTOH have repeatedly ignored that there are many factors why Bush
won by a very small margin, including what I posted earlier in this
thread:
__________________
Clinton pointed out the Democrats "need a clear
national message." [1], and:
1) Bush is a sitting president during wartime - which is very
difficult to take down under any circumstance; 2) BushCo played the
terror/fear card for all it's poltically worth, which is a lot, 3) Via
repetition ad nauseum BushCo managed to smear Kerry as a
"flip-flopper" and "soft on terror" in the eyes of much of the voting
public that didn't pay close enough attention to Kerry and Bush's
actual record; and 4) BushCo energized the Christian right with
visions of suppressing homosexuality, overturning Roe v. Wade, and
continuing as the most pro-Likud government in U.S. history.
__________________

That you repeatedly ignore that there are many factors - including the
fact that Bush is a sitting president during wartime, which is very
difficult to take down under any circumstance - as to why the Dems
lost by a *very narrow margin* is 'kind of sad'.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So how does equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment lead
to people being "allowed four wives because of their religion"?
(Hint: It doesn't.)
I wanna marry more than one person at the same time, my religion allows it,
how does allowing marriage only between two people not give rights to those
people that I am denied?
In that scenario you have the same right under the law that everybody
else has: the right to marry (and divorce) one person at a time.
Post by DGDevin
How can you justify this Judeo-Christian bias in
your laws?
King Solomon, Brigham Young, the Pope, and I had a good laugh over
this comment. In any event whatever religious or cultural bias may or
may not exist within the law that has no bearing on *equal
enforcement* under the law per the 14th Amendment.

(14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.")
Post by DGDevin
Who is harmed by me marrying two, three or four woman all at
once, or men for that matter, or barnyard animals if it comes to that? Why
am I persecuted by your unjust and unequal laws?
Whether there is 'harm' in marrying more than one other person or not
also has no bearing on equal enforcement under the law per the 14th
Amendment.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Post by DGDevin
the nation they
established was quite happy with slavery
Not true. Even then slavery was a deeply contentious issue, and the
most prominent of our founding fathers correctly understood that the
institution of slavery was immoral and a very serious problem and
threat to the nation.
Oh man, what a fantasy, some of "the most prominent" were also slave owners,
slavery apparently wasn't immoral enough for them to sacrifice their profits
from the existing arrangement.
So what part of those quotes, including this one from Washington, did
you not understand?

"[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a
view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof
of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself
generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair
of seeing it. Some petitions were presented to the Assembly, at its
last Session, for the abolition of slavery, but they could scarcely
obtain a reading. To set them afloat at once would, I really believe,
be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it
certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected."
- George Washington, in a letter to Lafayette

Our most prominent founding fathers didn't end slavery at that time
because most of them believed that it wasn't politically practicable
at that time to do so - they put founding the nation first. However
regarless of *why* they didn't end slavery they were obviously not
"quite happy with slavery," and neither per your incorrect declaration
was the nation "quite happy with slavery." Again, slavery was a
deeply contentious issue even then.

" I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in
... abhorrence."
- John Adams

Nice attempt at spewing distortion and when called on it yet again
trying to move the rhetorical target, however.

Ray




[1]
___________________

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first
comments on
President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine"
about
the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."
Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing
issue of
gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put
on the
ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden
in the
final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they
didn't want to
"change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national
security,
Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York
Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism
fears, as did
suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security
moms of
2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than
Republicans,
the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who
were
already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president - whose wife Hillary is
already
being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 -
said
Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and .
. . whine
about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat
how they
were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and
family,
doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this
without one
big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a
theological
message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and
called for an
end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in
September, gave
Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great
organization and
great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less
dependence on
foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a
great
opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in
conflict," he
said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an
Israeli-Palestinian
peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic
fundamentalist
terrorism
DGDevin
2004-11-19 11:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Nice attempt at spewing distortion and when called on it yet again
trying to move the rhetorical target, however.
Ray
I want you to repost all this enormous lecture in four years time, because
odds are that you'll be looking at another Republican in the White House
backed by a Rep. Congress, and you can explain again how the majority
doesn't *really* distrust the Dems and anyone who disagrees is spewing
distortion etc. With what has happened in the past few years, Bush should
have lost this election so bad his own mother would stop talking to him,
instead he's got four more years, and you have the *gall* to pretend that
isn't primarily the fault of the Democrats? Sure, whatever you say, by all
means stick with that in four years, it will save time making up something
new.
Richard Morris
2004-11-19 14:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
Nice attempt at spewing distortion and when called on it yet again
trying to move the rhetorical target, however.
Ray
I want you to repost all this enormous lecture in four years time, because
odds are that you'll be looking at another Republican in the White House
backed by a Rep. Congress, and you can explain again how the majority
doesn't *really* distrust the Dems and anyone who disagrees is spewing
distortion etc. With what has happened in the past few years, Bush should
have lost this election so bad his own mother would stop talking to him,
instead he's got four more years, and you have the *gall* to pretend that
isn't primarily the fault of the Democrats? Sure, whatever you say, by all
means stick with that in four years, it will save time making up something
new.
There ya have it folks ... we are officially now working on the next
presidential election in 2008. At least one crank here is.

Nothing better to do, I guess.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
DGDevin
2004-11-20 23:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Morris
There ya have it folks ... we are officially now working on the next
presidential election in 2008. At least one crank here is.
Nothing better to do, I guess.
You family asked me to post this stuff to give you something to focus on,
you've been so depressed and distant since Nov. 3rd, so I guess I'm like one
of those wind-up mice people use to get the cat to wake up get a little
exercise. And considering you can't stop replying, it seems to be working.
Richard Morris
2004-11-20 23:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Richard Morris
There ya have it folks ... we are officially now working on the next
presidential election in 2008. At least one crank here is.
Nothing better to do, I guess.
You family asked me to post this stuff to give you something to focus on,
you've been so depressed and distant since Nov. 3rd, so I guess I'm like one
of those wind-up mice people use to get the cat to wake up get a little
exercise. And considering you can't stop replying, it seems to be working.
You are simply a broken record. Yawn.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
DGDevin
2004-11-21 21:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Morris
You are simply a broken record. Yawn.
Dude, lots of kids here these days, try "skipping CD" so they understand.
Ray Lee
2004-11-19 17:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Bush should
have lost this election so bad his own mother would stop talking to him,
In an ideal world, yes.
Post by Ray Lee
instead he's got four more years, you have the *gall* to pretend that
isn't primarily the fault of the Democrats? Sure, whatever you say, by all
means stick with that in four years, it will save time making up something
new.
More moving targets...

So what part of:

What the Democrats have to consider is that the Republicans and their
minions in the right-wing echo chamber do a damn good job of
distorting what the Democratic platform actually is, and that the
Democrats have not been effective at countering that distortion. And
that moreover as Clinton pointed out the Democrats "need a clear
national message."

did you not read or not understand?

I'll add that Democrats, ideally, need a another candidate like Bill
Clinton, in the sense that Clinton has the rare ability to relate to
people of vastly different classes and backgrounds, or at least
project that image well enough so that people of vastly different
classes and backgrounds believe it. Just like George W.Bush.

For these reasons and others, that the Democrats lost is IMO primarily
the fault of the Democrats, and I've never "pretended" otherwise - you
yet again asserted something that is not true.

But hey, if when called on your b.s. you want to keep changing the
subject with even more b.s. then keep at it - it's kind of
entertaining, albeit in a 'kind of sad' sort of way.

Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-23 09:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
They get those perceptions from many other things and 'sources' as
well - including people like you, who spew out a constant stream of
bullshit that distorts the Democratic position.
Coming from someone who lectured us on how Kerry's position on gun control
is focused on just "assault weapons" when Kerry himself owns such a weapon,
you should be careful about sneering at 'sources' just because you disagree
with them.
Ray Lee
2004-11-23 17:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
They get those perceptions from many other things and 'sources' as
well - including people like you, who spew out a constant stream of
bullshit that distorts the Democratic position.
Coming from someone who lectured us on how Kerry's position on gun control
is focused on just "assault weapons"
Still more b.s. - I said no such thing.

Again you really need to take off those duck-hunting goggles DG - they
are severely warping your view.

"You see what you want to see."

Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-20 23:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
I never referred to the DP platform, or in your mind are "liberals" and
"Democratic National Committee" interchangeable terms? You're demanding I
jump through a hoop by claiming I said something I didn't, and that ain't
gonna work. Your attempts to distort my comments on Clinton's speech are
also bogus, the evidence of the last election shows the voters cannot
overcome their distrust of the Dems, and even if hot-button issues like gay
marriage helped to stir that mistrust, it is very real. Clinton knows that,
naturally he wants to blame the Republicans, but he still sees that the gap
between what the majority of the voters believe and what they think the Dems
will do if given the chance cost the Dems the 2004 election. It wasn't Karl
Rove's black helicopters, and if the Dems run their next campaign as if it
was, they'll lose again. Either the Dems retake the center or they will
continue to watch from the sidelines. You might not like that, but that's
the way it is, Clinton sees it, you just don't want to.
Richard Morris
2004-11-20 23:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
I never referred to the DP platform, or in your mind are "liberals" and
"Democratic National Committee" interchangeable terms? You're demanding I
jump through a hoop by claiming I said something I didn't, and that ain't
gonna work. Your attempts to distort my comments on Clinton's speech are
also bogus, the evidence of the last election shows the voters cannot
overcome their distrust of the Dems, and even if hot-button issues like gay
marriage helped to stir that mistrust, it is very real. Clinton knows that,
naturally he wants to blame the Republicans, but he still sees that the gap
between what the majority of the voters believe and what they think the Dems
will do if given the chance cost the Dems the 2004 election. It wasn't Karl
Rove's black helicopters, and if the Dems run their next campaign as if it
was, they'll lose again. Either the Dems retake the center or they will
continue to watch from the sidelines. You might not like that, but that's
the way it is, Clinton sees it, you just don't want to.
Folks, in order to engage someone in civil discourse, there are some
implicit rules of the road. One is that people discuss in good faith,
as opposed to obfuscation.

Dude is a one-trick pony. There is not "there", there. You won't
persuade him of anything. You simply feed his need for attention.

R.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
JimK
2004-11-21 14:52:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:48:55 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
I never referred to the DP platform, or in your mind are "liberals" and
"Democratic National Committee" interchangeable terms? You're demanding I
jump through a hoop by claiming I said something I didn't, and that ain't
gonna work.
You never referred to the DP platform? So who wrote the statement
below? Did somebody hijack your computer?

"The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left
slips its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back
they find they've been saddled with some goofball platform that
alienates more than half the voters, resulting in the Republicans
winning the White House and the Congress, again. So until you
"liberals" can put your wingnut faction on a shorter leash and get
your platform in sync with what the bulk of the populace can stomach,
then don't complain that the rest of us can't tell the difference
between you and your more radical cousins."

So are you gonna jump through that hoop now, are or you going to
continue living in your perpetual state of denial?

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-21 21:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
You never referred to the DP platform? So who wrote the statement
below? Did somebody hijack your computer?
You then quote a paragraph in which the word "Democrat" does not appear. So
I'll ask again, do your think "liberals" and "Democratic National Committee"
are interchangeable terms? Later I gave a list of specific examples of
things that alienate many voters from the Dems at local, regional and
national levels, and nobody touched that with a ten-foot pole, did they?
Post by JimK
So are you gonna jump through that hoop now, are or you going to
continue living in your perpetual state of denial?
Count on me not jumping through any hoop you desperately hold up. You see
what you want to see, then you demand I respond to *your* misinterpretation
as if I actually wrote something I did not? Aint' gonna happen.
JimK
2004-11-22 02:26:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:31:10 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
You never referred to the DP platform? So who wrote the statement
below? Did somebody hijack your computer?
You then quote a paragraph in which the word "Democrat" does not appear. So
I'll ask again, do your think "liberals" and "Democratic National Committee"
are interchangeable terms? Later I gave a list of specific examples of
things that alienate many voters from the Dems at local, regional and
national levels, and nobody touched that with a ten-foot pole, did they?
Post by JimK
So are you gonna jump through that hoop now, are or you going to
continue living in your perpetual state of denial?
Count on me not jumping through any hoop you desperately hold up. You see
what you want to see, then you demand I respond to *your* misinterpretation
as if I actually wrote something I did not? Aint' gonna happen.
So please enlighten me. Exactly whose platform were you referring to?
Bolsheviks? Martians? As far as I know, "liberals" don't have a
platform, and there's no Liberal Party in this country that I'm aware
of. More semantic games. If you like games so much, just jump through
the damned hoop.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-23 08:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
So please enlighten me. Exactly whose platform were you referring to?
Bolsheviks? Martians? As far as I know, "liberals" don't have a
platform, and there's no Liberal Party in this country that I'm aware
of. More semantic games. If you like games so much, just jump through
the damned hoop.
JimK
Will it calm your racing heart and cool your sweaty brow if we substitute
"agenda" or "philosophy" or "value judgement matrix" for "platform?" The
point was that the majority of the voters think "liberal" means their core
values will be ignored, and there's only one party they associate with the
word "liberal" and I don't mean the Greens. Bill Clinton agrees with me
BTW, in his recent speech he pointed out the Dems need to re-engage with
"small town" America if they want to win any more elections. Yes, he said
the gap between the Dems and middle America has been engineered by those
rascally Republicans, but he still sees that the gap exists. So long as
middle-America thinks the Dems don't share their values, how did Clinton put
it -- faith, family, work and freedom -- then the Republicans will keep
eating the Dems' lunch. Clinton won two terms by moderating the Dem's
agenda and stealing part of the Republican's, he knows what's he's talking
about.

Of course, if you'd rather believe that the majority *really* are behind gay
marriage and Australian-style firearms laws and higher taxes and drivers
licenses for illegal aliens, then go on doing what you're doing, just keep
the name "Jeb Bush" in mind.
Ray Lee
2004-11-23 17:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
So please enlighten me. Exactly whose platform were you referring to?
Bolsheviks? Martians? As far as I know, "liberals" don't have a
platform, and there's no Liberal Party in this country that I'm aware
of. More semantic games. If you like games so much, just jump through
the damned hoop.
JimK
Will it calm your racing heart and cool your sweaty brow if we substitute
"agenda" or "philosophy" or "value judgement matrix" for "platform?"
You are continuing to evade the question that Jim, Seth and I
repeatedly asked you to answer - which is whose platform were you
referring to. In any event if you want to backtrack with that
non-equivalent substitution go for it
Post by DGDevin
The
point was that the majority of the voters think "liberal" means their core
values will be ignored, and there's only one party they associate with the
word "liberal" and I don't mean the Greens. Bill Clinton agrees with me
BTW, in his recent speech he pointed out the Dems need to re-engage with
"small town" America if they want to win any more elections. Yes, he said
the gap between the Dems and middle America has been engineered by those
rascally Republicans, but he still sees that the gap exists.
I agree.

That is not equivalent to what you previously and incorrectly
asserted, however:

"And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech
in NY, either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as
a radical agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think
is a safer party to Washington."

Nice to see that you are backtracking to the point that you are
characterizing reality here as it really is at least - that's a start.

Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-23 18:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
You are continuing to evade the question that Jim, Seth and I
repeatedly asked you to answer - which is whose platform were you
referring to. In any event if you want to backtrack with that
non-equivalent substitution go for it
And you are continuing to miss that I ain't about to jump through any hoop
you hold up, your childish insistence that I bow to your newspeak narrow use
of the language is not my problem. The use of the word "platform" in the
context I used it in does not mean it has to refer to official postions of a
political party much as you would like to pretend it does. It seems that in
the state of shock you find yourself in post-Nov 2nd, you are willing to go
for petty debating points rather than see the larger issues. Cool, if will
give you practice for 2008.
Post by Ray Lee
I agree.
That is not equivalent to what you previously and incorrectly
Horseshit, the gap Clinton sees between middle-America and the Dems is the
whole point, you want to lock onto the spin part of his speech where he
naturally wants to blame the Republicans for manufacturing that gap while
ignoring that while he was in charge they weren't able to do that. You're
the guy on the Titanic who wants to argue about which side of the ship hit
the iceberg while ignoring that the ship is sinking. And that's
understandable, petty debating points will have to hold you over for the
next few years.
Ray Lee
2004-11-23 22:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
You are continuing to evade the question that Jim, Seth and I
repeatedly asked you to answer - which is whose platform were you
referring to. In any event if you want to backtrack with that
non-equivalent substitution go for it
And you are continuing to miss that I ain't about to jump through any hoop
you hold up, your childish insistence that I bow to your newspeak narrow
use of the language is not my problem.
You are now asserting that our taking what you said literally amounts
to ‘newspeak'?!?

LOL – I love irony.
Post by DGDevin
The use of the word "platform" in the context I used it in does not mean
it has to refer to official postions of a political party
In the context that you used it per Websters.com a "platform" is:

"a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stands;
especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a
political party or a candidate."

If you have an alternate definition for "platform" that you were
instead using in this context please provide it and cite your source;
thanks.
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
That is not equivalent to what you previously and incorrectly
Horseshit, the gap Clinton sees between middle-America and the Dems is the
whole point
Here's Clinton in that recent NY speech, talking about the gap that
some in middle America *perceive* re- the Dems:

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and
family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault."

However what you incorrectly asserted that Clinton said in that speech
was:

"And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech
in NY, either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as
a radical agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think
is a safer party to Washington."

These two statements are not equivalent - changing *perceptions* does
not equate with changing *agendas*.

HTH,
Ray
DGDevin
2004-11-24 10:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
You are now asserting that our taking what you said literally amounts
to 'newspeak'?!?
No, I am laughing at your by now boringly predictable efforts to twist what
I wrote while ignoring the bare-faced meaning. I write three feet, so you
claim it's really a yard, then you repeat it for the next eighty-seven posts
as if sheer repetition will make it a less pointless observation. I wrote
that Clinton warned his party that many Americans think the Dems don't
reflect their values, your stinging rebuttal is that Clinton warned his
party that they can't allow many Americans to think that the Dems don't
reflect their values. Wow, brilliant, that should get you back on the
community college debating team for sure.
Do you carry that dictionary around with you, is that the problem, you're
like the defense attorney who figures his client is entitled to acquital
because the cop who read him his Miranda rights unwittingly change one word
even if the meaning was the same?
Post by Ray Lee
These two statements are not equivalent - changing *perceptions* does
not equate with changing *agendas*.
Like I said, I understand *why* you're doing this, any tiny feeling of
victory at a time when the majority of the voters has let you know just how
irrelevant and pointless they think your side of the debate is has got to be
a comfort to you in this dark time. Make it last Ray, you got four long
years ahead.
JimK
2004-11-24 14:52:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:16:58 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
You are now asserting that our taking what you said literally amounts
to 'newspeak'?!?
No, I am laughing at your by now boringly predictable efforts to twist what
I wrote while ignoring the bare-faced meaning.
<snip>

Nominated for funniest post of the month.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-26 21:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
Nominated for funniest post of the month.
JimK
Is there a prize?
JimK
2004-11-26 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:11:22 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
Nominated for funniest post of the month.
JimK
Is there a prize?
Don't worry about the prize. You've only been nominated. You didn't
win yet, and there's some stiff competition. And there's a few days
left in the month, so you just might top yourself.

JimK
Ray Lee
2004-11-24 18:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
You are now asserting that our taking what you said literally amounts
to 'newspeak'?!?
No, I am laughing at your by now boringly predictable efforts to twist what
I wrote while ignoring the bare-faced meaning.
LOL. Have you ever considered a career in stand-up comedy?

The 'bare-faced' - as well as literal - meaning of a "platform" in
this context is:

"a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stands;
especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a
political party or a candidate."

If you have an alternate definition for "platform" that you were
instead using in this context please provide it and cite your source;
thanks.
Post by DGDevin
that Clinton warned his party that many Americans think the Dems don't
reflect their values
You wrote that that Clinton warned his party that "either they drop
what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a radical agenda" or
they will continue losing - not the same thing. Surely you understand
this, don't you DG?

Hey keep twisting in the wind all you want - it's kinda entertaining
to watch, albeit in a 'kind of sad' sort of way.

Ray
JimK
2004-11-23 22:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
So please enlighten me. Exactly whose platform were you referring to?
Bolsheviks? Martians? As far as I know, "liberals" don't have a
platform, and there's no Liberal Party in this country that I'm aware
of. More semantic games. If you like games so much, just jump through
the damned hoop.
JimK
Will it calm your racing heart and cool your sweaty brow if we substitute
"agenda" or "philosophy" or "value judgement matrix" for "platform?"
You are continuing to evade the question that Jim, Seth and I
repeatedly asked you to answer - which is whose platform were you
referring to. In any event if you want to backtrack with that
non-equivalent substitution go for it
Post by DGDevin
The
point was that the majority of the voters think "liberal" means their core
values will be ignored, and there's only one party they associate with the
word "liberal" and I don't mean the Greens. Bill Clinton agrees with me
BTW, in his recent speech he pointed out the Dems need to re-engage with
"small town" America if they want to win any more elections. Yes, he said
the gap between the Dems and middle America has been engineered by those
rascally Republicans, but he still sees that the gap exists.
I agree.
That is not equivalent to what you previously and incorrectly
"And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech
in NY, either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as
a radical agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think
is a safer party to Washington."
Nice to see that you are backtracking to the point that you are
characterizing reality here as it really is at least - that's a start.
Ray
That's DG's modus operandi. Make an inaccurate statement, then
repeatedly denies it's inaccuracy when challenged until the inaccuracy
is proven beyond a doubt. At that point, he corrects his statement but
claims that he's saying the same thing that he said in the original
post. Only when he has no shred of credibility left does he finally
admit that he just might have been wrong, yet even then he'll try to
convince you that the error is irrelevant because he was arguing a
different issue.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-24 09:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
That's DG's modus operandi. Make an inaccurate statement, then
repeatedly denies it's inaccuracy when challenged until the inaccuracy
is proven beyond a doubt. At that point, he corrects his statement but
claims that he's saying the same thing that he said in the original
post. Only when he has no shred of credibility left does he finally
admit that he just might have been wrong, yet even then he'll try to
convince you that the error is irrelevant because he was arguing a
different issue.
JimK
I have changed nothing, I stand by every word. Clinton made a speech in
which he warned the Dems that "small town America" thinks the Dems don't
represent the values of those people. Of course he tries to sugar-coat that
by claiming that this gap between the Dems and middle-America is a
Republican creation, but even it he's right *it doesn't matter* because the
existence of the gap is the real issue, not whether it was engineered or
not. He was warning his party, telling them what they have to do to stop
losing elections. But you and Ray will parrot each other until doomsday
claiming, "DG said there are half a dozen apples, now he says there are six,
he keeps changing his story." As for my credibility, I hold it as a badge
of honor to be called a liar by you and brother Ray, I can't think of anyone
I would rather not share a point of view with, thanks for the unintended
endorsement.
JimK
2004-11-24 14:53:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:57:33 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
That's DG's modus operandi. Make an inaccurate statement, then
repeatedly denies it's inaccuracy when challenged until the inaccuracy
is proven beyond a doubt. At that point, he corrects his statement but
claims that he's saying the same thing that he said in the original
post. Only when he has no shred of credibility left does he finally
admit that he just might have been wrong, yet even then he'll try to
convince you that the error is irrelevant because he was arguing a
different issue.
JimK
I have changed nothing, I stand by every word. Clinton made a speech in
which he warned the Dems that "small town America" thinks the Dems don't
represent the values of those people. Of course he tries to sugar-coat that
by claiming that this gap between the Dems and middle-America is a
Republican creation, but even it he's right *it doesn't matter* because the
existence of the gap is the real issue, not whether it was engineered or
not. He was warning his party, telling them what they have to do to stop
losing elections. But you and Ray will parrot each other until doomsday
claiming, "DG said there are half a dozen apples, now he says there are six,
he keeps changing his story." As for my credibility, I hold it as a badge
of honor to be called a liar by you and brother Ray, I can't think of anyone
I would rather not share a point of view with, thanks for the unintended
endorsement.
When caught in a lie, lie harder.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-11-26 21:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
When caught in a lie, lie harder.
JimK
It's not like I ever expected to make someone like you even consider
re-examining your position, you'd drown rather than let a rightist stooge
pull you out of the river, but everything I've posted on this issue is there
for people with more open minds to see.
JimK
2004-11-26 21:43:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:14:56 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
When caught in a lie, lie harder.
JimK
It's not like I ever expected to make someone like you even consider
re-examining your position, you'd drown rather than let a rightist stooge
pull you out of the river, but everything I've posted on this issue is there
for people with more open minds to see.
I know. That's because we keep reposting it to show your
inconsistencies.

JimK

Ray Lee
2004-11-22 07:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Later I gave a list of specific examples of
things that alienate many voters from the Dems at local, regional and
national levels, and nobody touched that with a ten-foot pole, did they?
Wrong yet -again-, DGD - 'they' did 'touch that with a ten-foot pole.'
So what part of:

'Of course they have an adverse impact on some peoples' perceptions of
the Democratic party - but none of those things are in the
"platform".'

did you not see or not understand?
Post by DGDevin
You see what you want to see
LOL - amazing.

Ray
Ray Lee
2004-11-21 17:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So what specific part(s) of the Democratic Party platform do you think
is/are "goofball" and "alienates more than half the voters"?
I never referred to the DP platform
So now you're backtracking - that's cool, I'm game.

In which case, whose platform* were you referring to when you
declared:

"The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left
slips
its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back they
find
they've been saddled with some goofball platform that alienates more
than
half the voters, resulting in the Republicans winning the White House
and
the Congress, again. So until you "liberals" can put your wingnut
faction
on a shorter leash and get your platform in sync with what the bulk of
the
populace can stomach, then don't complain that the rest of us can't
tell the
difference between you and your more radical cousins."

Please be specific; thanks.

------------------
*platform

2 : a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons
stands; especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted
by a political party or a candidate

(websters.com)
------------------
Post by DGDevin
Your attempts to distort my comments on Clinton's speech are
also bogus
Jeez... you really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. But
then we knew this - a guy who when called on incorrectly declaring
that Bush won by a bigger "margin" than Clinton did, instead of simply
admitting his obvious mistake, instead repeatedly insists against all
rationality that the person who called him on it was 'mistaken' for
taking his incorrect declaration literally is not someone who readily
admits when he's wrong.

Here's what you wrote:

"And that is what Clinton warned the Dems about in his recent speech
in NY,
either they drop what the *majority* of the voters perceive as a
radical
agenda, or the voters will continue to send what they think is a safer
party
to Washington."

From all news accounts that I have read of that NY speech Clinton said
no such thing.[1] If you disagree, specifically cite what Clinton
said in that speech that leads you to believe otherwise.
Post by DGDevin
Either the Dems retake the center or they will
continue to watch from the sidelines. You might not like that, but that's
the way it is, Clinton sees it, you just don't want to.
One could (and many do) make the argument that getting the 'base' out
is the way to win. However, while getting the base out is of course
very important, I am among those who believe that getting a
significant portion of the center is key to winning as well.

Which is to say, you are once again wrong - your incorrect assertion
that "Clinton sees it, you just don't want to" is yet another example
of where your prejudices have distorted your perception of reality to
the point that you make routinely incorrect inferences and then
incorrectly assert them to be The Way Things Are as a matter of
course.

You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

Ray




[1]
___________________

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first
comments on President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats
not to "whine" about the outcome, but to find a "clear national
message."

Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing
issue of gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court
and put on the ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from
Osama bin Laden in the final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they
didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern
over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land
Institute at the New York Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism
fears, as did suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into
"the security moms of 2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than
Republicans, the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to
the polls who were already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president - whose wife Hillary is
already being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in
2008 - said Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's
defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and .
. . whine about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat
how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and
family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he
said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this
without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't
have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as
evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and
called for an end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in
September, gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election
victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great
organization and great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less
dependence on foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a
great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in
conflict," he said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an
Israeli-Palestinian peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism worldwide, Clinton said. "They would have to
think of a new excuse to murder people."
DGDevin
2004-11-21 21:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
So now you're backtracking - that's cool, I'm game.
Not backtracking an inch, you quoted a paragraph which didn't refer to the
Dem. Party or its platform at all, you have tried to twist it to mean
something it doesn't, and I understand, it's all you have to argue with, but
it isn't enough.
Seth Jackson
2004-11-21 23:00:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:33:49 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by Ray Lee
So now you're backtracking - that's cool, I'm game.
Not backtracking an inch, you quoted a paragraph which didn't refer to the
Dem. Party or its platform at all, you have tried to twist it to mean
something it doesn't, and I understand, it's all you have to argue with, but
it isn't enough.
Of course, you avoided answering his question. Whose platform were
you referring to, exactly?

- Seth Jackson

Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Ray Lee
2004-11-22 06:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Not backtracking an inch, you quoted a paragraph which didn't refer to the
Dem. Party or its platform at all, you have tried to twist it to mean
something it doesn't, and I understand, it's all you have to argue with, but
it isn't enough.
LOL - whatever.
Post by DGDevin
I never referred to the DP platform
In which case, whose "platform"* were you referring to when you
declared:

"The trouble with liberals is they can't maintain control of their own
agenda, every time they leave the room to smoke a joint, the far left
slips its own mix tape into the stereo and when the liberals come back
they find they've been saddled with some goofball platform that
alienates more than half the voters, resulting in the Republicans
winning the White House and the Congress, again. So until you
"liberals" can put your wingnut faction on a shorter leash and get
your platform in sync with what the bulk of the populace can stomach,
then don't complain that the rest of us can't tell the difference
between you and your more radical cousins."

Please be specific; thanks.

Ray



____________
*platform

2 : a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons
stands; especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted
by a political party or a candidate

(websters.com)



"The more that you give, why, the more it will take
to the thin line beyond which you really can't fake"
Seth Jackson
2004-11-21 23:00:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:48:55 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
I never referred to the DP platform,
That's a shame. I think the DP platform is wonderful. Some of my
favorites are DP3, DP8, DP10, DP12, DP15, DP16, and DP18. There are
several others that would make my list, but I already have crispy SBDs
of the shows.

Of course, the Vault platform is outstanding, as well. OFTV, TFTV,
and Hundred Year Hall are all classic.

- Seth Jackson

Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
DGDevin
2004-11-23 08:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Jackson
That's a shame. I think the DP platform is wonderful. Some of my
favorites are DP3, DP8, DP10, DP12, DP15, DP16, and DP18. There are
several others that would make my list, but I already have crispy SBDs
of the shows.
I'm kind of partial to DP5 myself, but then I've seen some wonderful shows
in that building.
Ray Lee
2004-11-17 22:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Per your citation in this thread re- reversals from the conservative
[8 out of 18 reverals in one term were unanimous]
Gee, here's one from a source quite sympathetic to the 9th --
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1088439705222
"Although the reversal rate was normal, the term was not without trouble.
More than half of the 9th Circuit's 19 reversals were unanimous."
Hmmm, more than half, that's a majority, right?
So in one term less than half of the reversals were unanimous, and in
another more than half were. This does not establish an overall trend
from which one can reliably assert as you did that "actually the
liberals agree most of the time"; surely you must be aware of this.
the SC justices are the ones who keep overturning the 9th, not us.
On this we agree.

Ray



________________________

The 9th Circuit Follows
Court's reversals stem from being too law-abiding, not too liberal

Michele Landis Dauber
Legal Times
08-23-2002

One of the most cherished conservative shibboleths is the notion that
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a liberal court, a den of
outlaw judicial activists that the U.S. Supreme Court must regularly
smack into submission. Adherents of this view obsessively revisit a
few highly publicized cases, like the recent panel decision that the
phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First
Amendment, or the 1996 en banc determination that the terminally ill
have a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. The Supreme
Court quickly reversed the assisted-suicide opinion. Should the Pledge
opinion even survive en banc review (motions were filed in early
August), the same fate doubtless awaits that decision.

Critics of the 9th Circuit generally offer two explanations for its
frequent reversal: The court is too large, and it is too liberal.

Both of these explanations are wrong. The 9th Circuit's problem is
neither its size nor its politics. The 9th Circuit's problem is the
Supreme Court, and the speed with which the high court is remaking
much of American law.

TOO BIG?

As an initial matter, no one really cares about the size of the 9th
Circuit. During the Clinton administration, conservatives invented the
argument that the reason the 9th Circuit was frequently reversed was
that it was "too big." Republican politicians, hoping to split the 9th
into two or more smaller circuits, appointed a commission chaired by
retired Justice Byron White to investigate the matter. While the White
Commission made some suggestions for improvement, it found that the
Circuit generally functioned well.

In response to the White Commission, the 9th Circuit established its
own blue-ribbon committee made up of judges, lawyers, economists and
academic experts, who conducted numerous statistical analyses of the
court's performance and concluded that its size did not present a
problem. Conservative jurist and public intellectual Richard Posner
also attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish that the 9th Circuit's
Supreme Court reversal rate is a function of its size. In sum, no hard
evidence has ever emerged that would even tend to support the
proposition that the 9th Circuit is too large to function properly.

This utter lack of proof didn't matter, however, because everyone on
both sides of the fight over circuit splitting knew that it was really
a thinly disguised political effort to dilute the voting strength of
any liberal jurists that President Bill Clinton might have appointed.
Conservatives sought to counteract the risk that three California
liberals might land on a panel deciding an issue from a conservative
state like Idaho. As then-Senior Judge Charles Wiggins, a staunchly
conservative member of the 9th Circuit, testified before a House
Judiciary subcommittee in 1999, the attack on the Circuit's size was
motivated by "provincialism" and by political efforts to tamper with
the court, both of which he decried as "illegitimate." Then the
Supreme Court made sure that there wouldn't be a Democratic president
making any appointments to the 9th Circuit for a while, and that was
the last we heard about what Justice Antonin Scalia had called the
"oversized" court.

TOO LIBERAL?

As it turned out, the conservatives needn't have worried. President
Clinton filled a number of the court's vacant billets with moderate to
conservative jurists who were approved in advance by the Republican
leadership. These appointees have voted consistently with the court's
large right-wing bloc.

In fact, while it is frequently reported that 17 of the 24 active
judges were appointed by Democrats, this sly insinuation about the
politics of the court is simply mistaken. Of the 24 active judges, 12
are clearly conservatives, six are moderates, and only six could
fairly be characterized as liberals.

In practical terms, this means that in order to defend a "liberal"
opinion reversing a death sentence due to serious constitutional
infirmities against an effort to reconsider the case en banc, the
defense must hold all the votes of the liberals and garner all the
votes of the moderates -- most of whom favor the use of capital
punishment. Conversely, reconsideration of a "conservative" opinion
requires the votes of all the liberals, all the moderates, and a
defection by one conservative. These nearly insurmountable odds ensure
that the 9th Circuit is no liberal court.

Moreover, those few remaining liberals on the 9th Circuit are no more
likely to be reversed than their conservative colleagues. For example,
in the Supreme Court term just ended, the unrepentant liberal Judge
Stephen Reinhardt was reversed twice, but so was über-conservative
Judge Alex Kozinski. In the 1999-2000 term, the Supreme Court granted
certiorari in 10 of the 9th Circuit's cases, half of them authored by
conservatives, and reversed in nine. The only judge to be reversed
twice during that term was conservative Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain,
who was, ironically, one of the leading proponents of breaking up the
Circuit to reduce its reversal rate.

TOO CAUTIOUS?

Neither the size nor the illusory "liberal bias" of the 9th Circuit
explain its frequent reversal. Indeed, we can stop searching for the
reason that the 9th Circuit is so often "wrong," because the problem
is not that the 9th Circuit is "wrong" and the Supreme Court "right."

The problem is that we are living in a time when the constitutional
terrain is rapidly shifting. The Supreme Court is discarding many
landmark precedents that have enjoyed decades of adherence. To name
but a few examples, in recent years the Court has curtailed the
ability of Congress to legislate pursuant to the commerce clause, has
dramatically expanded the doctrine of sovereign immunity, has torn
down the wall between church and state, and has waged a relentless --
and largely unanimous -- campaign to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.
Conservatives would not disagree that this Court has abandoned much of
its earlier jurisprudence. On the contrary, that abandonment is one of
the proudest achievements of the Reagan revolution.

But the 9th Circuit is an intermediate court of appeals that must
continue to make a good-faith effort to apply Supreme Court precedents
as they now stand to the cases and controversies that come before it,
as it did in the Pledge case. What the job of an intermediate court
does not entail is trying to divine what the current members of the
Supreme Court might do if and when they get the case.

In a recent example, a 9th Circuit panel held in United States v.
Knights that a California policy requiring probationers to consent to
warrantless searches, even if unrelated to any probationary purpose,
violated the Fourth Amendment. The opinion, written by the same
ultra-conservative Judge Ferdinand Fernandez who dissented in the
Pledge case, made it clear that its holding was required by "a long
line of cases" from both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit.
Nevertheless, the government urged the panel to render a decision
contrary to that long-established law because the current Supreme
Court would be likely to alter the law given its recent Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence: "In fact, says the government, our
jurisprudence is so weakened that this panel should give it the slight
tap that will send it crashing to the ground." The panel refused, in
part for reasons of "pure principle": It is the Supreme Court's job to
change the law, should it choose to do so. It did so, and the panel's
opinion was unanimously reversed by the high court during the last
term.

TOO LAW-ABIDING

Unlike the 9th Circuit, some courts, such as the 4th and 5th Circuits,
have wholeheartedly embraced the strategy of anticipating the high
court's next move. Usually judges who engage in this guessing game get
it right. For instance, in Brzonkala v. Morrison, a panel of the 4th
Circuit refused to follow long-established Supreme Court precedent and
struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act. The
panel rightly guessed that the five-member Supreme Court majority
would seize the opportunity to restrict Congress' power to regulate
activities that it has found to have an effect on interstate commerce.
More rarely, judges guess wrong, as when the 4th Circuit brazenly
declared that Miranda v. Arizona was no longer good law, and the
Supreme Court disagreed.

Whether the lower court guesses right or wrong, however, it acts
lawlessly when it disregards existing precedent. Unfortunately, Chief
Justice William Rehnquist has repeatedly lauded the 4th Circuit as the
"best circuit" for doing precisely that.

As the chief justice's praise suggests, the Supreme Court itself bears
a large measure of blame for this practice. It has invited lower
courts to produce circuit splits, thereby blazing a trail for the high
court to follow. Such splits, based less on honest disagreements over
the current law than on headlong efforts to change it, give the high
court a fig leaf to cover its own activism: The Court can claim that
it is merely "resolving" an area of "unsettled law," rather than
admitting that it is engaged in a wholesale constitutional revolution.

Thus, Yale law professor Akhil Amar was right when he recently told
The New York Times that there is "something screwy" about the 9th
Circuit's high number of Supreme Court reversals, particularly
unanimous reversals. But what is "screwy," is not that the 9th Circuit
is getting the law wrong. It is that the Rehnquist Court is changing
the law so swiftly and on such a broad range of issues and doctrines
that it must reverse a multitude of decisions faithful to existing law
in order to achieve its ends.

---
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1088439705222
Ahnold Layne
2004-11-10 17:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadAhead71
Here's an interesting response to those of you still wondering how you
lost the election.
... cut ...
Post by DeadAhead71
I don't know. Maybe you guys on the left need the stereotyping and the
rage in order to motivate people to the polls. But from where folks like
me stand, it's your ideas that need to be questioned, and it's you guys
who have been on the wrong side of human rights and progress these last
couple of years. It's you guys who are the reactionaries.
That's what people like me have come to think, anyway. It's what a whole
lot of people I know think. Because otherwise, a whole lot of us are
puzzled as to why we can't seem to get through to you. Some of us just
plain gave up, and now just figure we have to work around you because
you won't listen anyway. We tried, we failed, so we just (no pun
intended) moved on.
So. You say you want to understand us. I appreciate that, and honestly,
that's as plain a picture as I can paint for you. Did I miss something?
Is there something important I should understand that I'm not getting?
Is there something in your arguments or beliefs that I'm just not
seeing? Because I feel like I get you guys and your arguments just fine,
that I've spent two and a half years researching your arguments and
trying to tell you why I think you're horribly mistaken, but that it's
you all who won't listen.
So is there any real hope here? I'd like to think there is but I just
don't know.
Posted by Dean
Hello,

This sounds really stupid to me... I don't understand. Maybe someone can
explain how the Iraq war was the right war at the right time for the right
reason. First off, what was the reason we went to Iraq?

We were told that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he
was giving weapons to terrorists, and that he was part of the 9/11 plot.

Well, it turns out that according to all official investigations of the
matter that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It also
turns out that there were very weak contacts between Saddam and Al Queda,
enough so that the 9/11 report dismisses the 9/11 connection.

So, what is this guy saying? That a war, entered into on false pretenses
is the right war? What is so right about it? Even if we agree that Saddam
was a brutal dictator, there are many more brutal dictators who may
actually have WMD. Except for the strategic importance of the oil industry
to many in the administration, how is this war justified? Also, in this
supposed 'moral values' society, how is lying justified?

I am amazed that the writer of this diatribe is shocked that the Democrats
are upset. Never before has a president lied to the public is such a bold
and unrepentant manner. Never before has the nation been thrust into a war
on false pretenses.

As I have said many times in the last week, it is certain that the
American people should expect that the nation protect us from terroristic
entities. But to take action which has no direct effect on reducing that
threat by attacking Iraq, who has questionable ties to terrorists to begin
with. I would have loved to see Osama Bin Ladens head on a pike, but
instead I see him on television heckling the USA. Do those pro-war people
feel that the mission was accomplished?

This piece does little to understand why people voted for Bush. Basically
he was saying that he pulled the lever to say "FUCK YOU" to the liberals.
That is very intelligent. He also says that he thinks the war is a good
thing. And I just don't see it that way. If I could ask him I would say
what is the goal, and will we realistically be able to accomplish it. Also
how long and how expensive will the transformation of Iraq be? I am tired
of paying taxes to support this ill-concieved war. I would like my money
to be spent on making America greater.

Thanks,
Michael Uman
Bill Moore
2004-11-10 18:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadAhead71
Now I must tell you that, because I have taken my stance on the Iraq
war, I was forced on this weblog to eventually require people to
register before they could leave comments. Why? Because I got tired of
being called a Nazi, a "Bush apologist," a right-wing extremist, a
brown shirt, a fascist, a sellout, and a liar on a daily basis by
those "open-minded" and "thoughtful" leftists who are apparently still
part of your tribe. My family has received death threats from angry
leftists. I realized at some point that I could either take down the
weblog completely, or I could start tossing out people who thought
they had a right to abuse me and my family just because they didn't
like my opinions.
In other words, I've experienced firsthand just how hateful,
intolerant, and irrational you guys can be when someone dares to
question your beliefs. You guys often come off exactly like the
theocratic mullahs and the lock-step fascists you claim to hate (but
which you, oddly enough, don't seem willing to use American power to
try to overthrow).
Of all the people I know who support this war, most of us have
"Why are the anti-war people so vicious and nasty?"
"Why are the anti-war people so irrational and hateful and smug?"
"How do we get through to them? They just won't listen!"
"Don't you get tired of being called a liar and a fascist? I sure do."
My experience of this is that there is plenty of irrationality
on both sides. How many times have pro-war people equated
opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein's
regime?

This newsgroup may be filled with leftists but out there in the
real world I think it goes both ways.

And on a related noted, regardless of whether one agreed with the invasion
of not, anyone who thinks that the Bush administration hasn't screwed up
badly in their handling of the Iraq war can't be paying much attention IMO.
I hope that in his second term the war is treated as the horror that it
is, by all involved, rather than a political football.
Olompali4
2004-11-10 18:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadAhead71
Is this because I'm a Republican? No more than Mr. Barlow.
Barlow is an Independent. He is repulsed by the Republican Party's alliance
with the neo conservative evangelicals.
Post by DeadAhead71
Am I a conservative, a "right winger?" Sure, I guess so, if you count
someone who's pro-choice on abortion, is flabbergasted at the
selfishness and mean-spiritedness of anyone who would put someone in
jail for smoking pot, favors gay marriage, supports human rights
organizations, and would love to see a world united in democratic
governments a "conservative right-winger."<
Um.. if all that is true you are absolutely not a conservative right winger.
Not by cureent definitions. You are their avowed enemy. Don't believe it? See
what's being written about Arlen Spector.
Post by DeadAhead71
and by the
way, you know we kids who were born in the 1960s are now in our 30s
and 40s and parents ourselves, right?<
As condescending a tone as any "leftist"
Post by DeadAhead71
not to mention in a lot of what we
see out of Hollywood today.
Don't trust the movies? Don't buy tickets.
It's simple.
Post by DeadAhead71
You
may laugh, but a whole lot of what's "questioning the establishment"
to you seems like the establishment itself to a hell of a lot of
people like me. Culturally, at least.
Ooh the scary artists again...If you think the culture represents the
establishment more than Exxon, Boeing, Dow Chemical, McDonnell Douglas etc
etc...you are naive and bought a propganda ploy to look at the pretty colors
and not reality.
Post by DeadAhead71
That being the case, there are are some things I don't see how we can
ever agree on. For example, you seem to unquestioningly accept the
left-wing orthodoxy that the war in Iraq has slaughtered hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis. Where you get such an idea I don't know<
Bombs do that. No matter who throws them.
Post by DeadAhead71
but from where I sit, having talked to both Iraqis and to soldiers
fighting over there, that is, not to put too fine a point on it, A
STEAMING CROCK OF HATE-MONGERING SHIT.<
Sorry but your "talking to both Iraqis and soldiers" may not qualify as in
depth reporting. Try journalists from around the world, you know, the ones not
afraid of ratings. And you may want to tone down the screaming and vulgarity or
you will destroy your credibility..just like what you accuse the "leftists" of
doing.
Post by DeadAhead71
Calling someone a liar when you know that maybe he was just wrong is a
form of lie too, by the way.
Of course you are talking about how the neo conservatives painted John McCain
and John Kerry
Post by DeadAhead71
I
thought the Iraq liberation was the right thing to do for America, for
the Iraqi people, and for the world as a whole.
Sure, we are the world's police force stopping evryone's criminals. One thing,
Bush didn't start this war to liberate Iraq. It was to stop imminent deployment
weapons of mass destruction. That is what he told one and all, worldwide.
Post by DeadAhead71
In other words, I've experienced firsthand just how hateful,
intolerant, and irrational you guys can be when someone dares to
question your beliefs. You guys often come off exactly like the
theocratic mullahs and the lock-step fascists you claim to hate (but
which you, oddly enough, don't seem willing to use American power to try to
overthrow).
Fire for fire. Contrlled burning. Difference is progressives "come off as.."
the neo cons are theocratic and lock step.
Post by DeadAhead71
It reached a point for a lot of us that on election day, we were doing
more than just saying "We want to re-elect George Bush." When we
pulled that lever for Bush, we were also just plain saying "FUCK YOU!"
Nice. Skip the issues, vote instead for spite. Kill those messengers.
Post by DeadAhead71
You guys were
too busy shrieking about the evil BushCo-McRove Machine to actually do
something to help those soldiers and those Iraqis you guys claim to
care so much about.<
BushCo are war profiteers.Exposing the true reason for this war inevitably
helps save lives. Like Kerry helping end the Viet Nam war. But you war freaks
will never understand that. Freedom? Right..try Cash.

Why bother..the premise of this post is as phony as a 9 dollar bill. You may
have dug EFF but pot smoking Deadhead? You forgot the "formerly"
Besides how dare you smoke illegal drugs when our soldiers are fighting and not
partying. Shut up, get straight and go volunteer.
Joker4153
2004-11-10 20:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olompali4
Why bother..the premise of this post is as phony as a 9 dollar bill. You may
have dug EFF but pot smoking Deadhead? You forgot the "formerly"
Besides how dare you smoke illegal drugs when our soldiers are fighting and not
partying. Shut up, get straight and go volunteer.
HRYK
Lady Chatterly
2004-11-10 21:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olompali4
Why bother..the premise of this post is as phony as a 9 dollar bill. You may
have dug EFF but pot smoking Deadhead? You forgot the "formerly"
Besides how dare you smoke illegal drugs when our soldiers are fighting and not
partying. Shut up, get straight and go volunteer.
HRYK
One cannot even dignify you with a name. You are simply a hole in the
air.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Botter? Parkaaaaaaay!" -- Daedalus
Richard Morris
2004-11-11 01:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadAhead71
Here's an interesting response to those of you still wondering how you
lost the election.
That's some fascinating shit there, man.

I have to admit that I kind of lost the thread when the guy admitted not
voting for Kerry not because of Kerry's position on the issue, but
because of what he thinks of some of Kerry's supporters. Seems a
peculiar way to determine support.

I find it more and more interesting that the Bush supporters accuse
Kerry and crew of being ultra-left wing, but the ultra-left wing has
consistently said that they fail to discern a difference between Bush
and Kerry. Ah well.

Finally, ya dumb shit ... Barlow is a republican and a conservative. To
call him a left-winger is a clear demonstration of ignorance.

R.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
leftie
2004-11-11 01:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Morris
Finally, ya dumb shit ... Barlow is a republican and a conservative. To
call him a left-winger is a clear demonstration of ignorance.
Barlow split with the Republican Party ages ago.
Ray Lee
2004-11-11 01:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadAhead71
That being the case, there are are some things I don't see how we can
ever agree on. For example, you seem to unquestioningly accept the
left-wing orthodoxy that the war in Iraq has slaughtered hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis.
That's 100,000+ estimated dead civilian Iraqis. And that is a
conservative estimate that does not include deaths from Falluja,
either before or after the latest incursion into the city.
Post by DeadAhead71
Where you get such an idea I don't know,
It helps when you follow the mainstream news and not just the
right-wing propaganda machine. This information comes from the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health via the Lancet - one of the world's
top peer-reviewed medical journals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html
Post by DeadAhead71
but from where I sit, having talked to both Iraqis and to soldiers
fighting over there, that is, not to put too fine a point on it, A
STEAMING CROCK OF HATE-MONGERING SHIT.
You are screaming that Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the
Lancet are publishing "A STEAMING CROCK OF HATE-MONGERING SHIT"?!?

Relax Dean - you need a chill pill. And you need to follow the
mainstream news and not knee-jerk reject those pieces of information
that challenge your world view.
Post by DeadAhead71
You also, in your missive, speak of watching "Fahrenheit 9/11." I hope
you're aware that that movie uses all the same propaganda techniques
as used by the great Fascist and Stalinist film producers such as
Goebbels and Eisenstein.
And I hope you're aware that BushCo has used all the same propaganda
techniques that Moore did in F911.
Post by DeadAhead71
Calling someone a liar when you know that maybe he was just wrong is a
form of lie too, by the way.
BushCo lied. And if you followed the news and did not knee-jerk
reject those pieces of information that challenge your world view you
too would know this.
Post by DeadAhead71
In other words, I've experienced firsthand just how hateful,
intolerant, and irrational you guys can be when someone dares to
question your beliefs.
Many on the Right can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

Calm down Dean, and stop your hate-filled yelling and shaking and for
a moment, and read the news with an open mind instead.

HTH,
Ray
Seth Jackson
2004-11-11 02:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Lee
Calm down Dean, and stop your hate-filled yelling and shaking and for
a moment, and read the news with an open mind instead.
He needs to understand that "news" doesn't equate to "Fox", "Rush",
"Hannity", and "O'Reilly".

- Seth Jackson

Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...