Lindaland
  Global Unity
  What the Democrats Have Become (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   What the Democrats Have Become
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2008 04:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
June 07, 2008
The Audacity of the Democrats
By Rocco DiPippo

There was a pre-Lewinsky time, before moral relativism blurred America's vision, when associating with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would have automatically excluded someone from attaining the highest office in the land. Back then, anyone with well known connections to such America-averse personalities would have been rejected by a super-majority of the electorate during primary season and almost certainly blocked by the Democratic Party before they could have gotten to within a mile of the White House. But those days -- when patriotic, true liberals like Joe Lieberman were considered typical Democratic Party politicians -- are gone. Now politicians like Lieberman are banished to the Party's periphery and leftists, not liberals, like Denis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, (who served in Vietnam), Jim McGovern, Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have replaced them.

Until recently in our history, a President Barack Obama would have been an impossibility. But given the political and ideological climate that exists today in America, the ascension of a leftist like Barack Obama into presidential politics makes perfect sense. Beliefs like domestic terrorist William Ayers's and racist, anti-US preacher Jeremiah Wright's are no longer met with utter scorn or a trip to behind the woodshed, but are embraced, promoted and defended by many Americans. Think MoveOn, International ANSWER, think hordes of young neo-communists and their indoctrinating, puppet-master Marx-spouting professors. Think Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and his acolytes. Think NYU, Columbia, The New School and Harvard. Most importantly, ponder the makeup and direction of the Democratic Party leadership. Like Barack Obama and his radical friends, it is appallingly far Left.

Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP. They have molded the Party into a force working stridently and unashamedly against a Commander in Chief during wartime. They have made it a den of treachery devoted to American defeat in Iraq. They preside over an institution advised and influenced by moneyed, non-governmental groups and individuals with unquestionably anti-US agendas who help make the Party a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans. Those ideas are shaped into agendas which are then forced on the public by an activist leftwing judiciary and by a major media and arts consortium shot through with utter disrespect, indeed contempt, for traditional American values, religions and institutions.

The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually ****** -off. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition. It is now the political province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive, destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

So what does all of that have to do with the propulsion of Barack Obama to within a whisker of the Presidency? Everything. It could not have happened without the existence of a substantial, organized, internal anti-US Left and the approval and guidance of the Democratic leadership I describe. Obama is in step with that radical element and with that leadership. His views reflect their views, and he is now a central figure in the deceptive, destructive strategy to restore the Democrats to power, a strategy that has been in play since the US Supreme Court declared Albert Gore the loser of the 2000 presidential contest. "Don't call me a liberal," says Obama. In a precise, lawyerly sort of way he is being honest - he truly isn't a liberal, but he is a leftist.

con't

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2008 04:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
con't

At a glance, Obama's quick rise in the world of presidential politics is puzzling. His background, including his personal and political associations, is antithetical to the historical stature of the American presidency. It could also be said that given his non-traditional upbringing, his schooling in radical politics and his seeming preference for friends and mentors who view America disdainfully, he is antithetical to the traditional American Experience itself. Obama is young and he has less than one Senate term under his belt. Neither quality is particularly presidential. Questions of patriotism dog him, as do questions about his religious and ethnic heritage. Many of the people who tutored and supported him through his personal and political journeys from the backwaters of Indonesia to the main stage of US presidential politics are contemptuous of the US. Some of them publicly express outright hatred of the country Obama now seeks to lead.

So why is so controversial a candidate even in the running to be president?

Because he reflects his Party's leftist agenda, has unique, prodigious manipulative talents and equally impressive Hollywood attributes. These are indispensable in closing out the dangerous, deliberate game the Democrats have been playing with America's security and its perceived stature in the world. It is a game that has been going on beneath our noses since the election of 2000. Its object is simple: the acquisition of power regardless of cost to the Nation. It is something the American people must be reminded of, made aware of, before they enter the voting booth in November.

A strategy of contention vs. the risk of irrelevance

The opening event setting the stage for Obama's ascension was the contentious 2000 election. When Bush was declared its winner, Democrats fumed that the election had been stolen by the Republicans. The promotion of that canard within leftwing and media circles and the personal quality of the resentment of Bush it provoked within the Democratic Party is important to mention, since a similar canard that morphed from it and became popularized -- "Bush Stole the Election," -- became the base justification for the future blizzard of untruths used to disparage the President. It also provided justification for the widespread disrespect and abuse President Bush endures to this day, disrespect that would be far more deserved if he had indeed illegally assumed power.

Less than a year after the 2000 election was finalized, September 11, 2001 arrived. In the baleful blink of a jihadist's eye, most of the issues that normally occupy the American polity in peaceful times were swept off the table. Issues that normally help Americans differentiate between the two major political parties and define those party's respective agendas -- health care, taxes, the environment, social programs and civil rights -- took a far-distant back seat to two far more pressing matters: Exacting justice for the 911 atrocities and protecting the homeland from additional attacks.

Since the American electorate historically views Republicans as being more competent and trustworthy than Democrats in matters of war and security, and since all other issues that Democrats could normally use to make political hay with had been blasted off the table by 911, the Party was facing the threat of irrelevance. There was another factor that did not bode well for the future political fortunes of the Democratic Party in the wake of the 911 attacks: George W. Bush had become an extraordinarily popular president.

Whatever patriotism was stoked within the hearts of Democratic Party leaders by that September Day of Infamy was likely tempered by an unsettling reality: If America stayed united behind George W. Bush and the Republicans during the coming military response to 911, the Democratic Party would be out of power for a long time.

As the wreckage of the Towers was being scoured for the remains of the murdered, the Democratic Party faced an extended stay in the political wilderness. It must have been an extraordinarily bitter pill to swallow, especially on the heels of its having lost the presidency by a tattered handful of contested votes. As things stood, Democrat prospects for winning it back anytime soon looked grim. Americans did not switch horses in the middle of a war -- unless they perceived a war to be headed towards defeat. This was especially true after the 911 attacks. The Democratic Party, with its conflict-averse, Vietnam-era mentality would be naturally unattractive to a war-time electorate seeking vengeance for the mass murder of its brothers and sisters. Pragmatically speaking, the only hope the Party had then, in terms of making inroads with post-911 American voters, rested on a single option: overlaying the US military response to 911 with a template -- the rhetoric, look and feel of the Vietnam debacle of years earlier, portraying those directing and supporting the war and those fighting it on the ground, as corrupt, inept and malevolent.

As the Democrats weighed their narrow, post-911 political options and saw a grim future, at least a few of them might have considered Jimmy Carter's triumph on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate, and felt a flicker of hope.

A Vietnam strategy develops

Soon after 911, as America shifted into a wartime footing, leftists in academia and in the Legal Left began testing the waters of dissent by deconstructing Bush and the Republicans and blaming American foreign policy for the 911 attacks. Several professors at major Universities openly proclaimed their wishes to see America defeated and disgraced. One of them, Professor Nicholas DeGenova of Columbia University, announced to those attending a ‘peace' conference at the school shortly after the 911 attacks that he "wished for a million Mogadishus," a reference to the loss of 18 US serviceman during a mission to capture a warlord in Somalia in 1997. DeGenova also said, "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," and referred to patriotism as a form of white supremacism adding that "My rejection of U.S. nationalism is an appeal to liberate our own political imaginations such that we might usher in a radically different world in which we will not remain the prisoners of U.S. global domination." Since DeGenova is an American collecting an excellent salary at a prestigious American university, it is puzzling who he meant by "we."

When the Democratic Party joined the academic Left's undermining of the Administration's military response to 911, a lethargic Republican public relations machine and inarticulate President were no match for the polish and reach of the influential leftwing media assisting the Democrats. Within months of 911 the Party and its media assistants began manufacturing anti-Bush, antiwar propaganda with impunity. Prominent leftwing intellectuals spoke openly of America's culpability in the 911 disaster even as the Towers still smoldered and the Nation wept, sowing seeds of doubt and divisiveness amongst a population that had been traumatized and then unified by the terrorist attacks. The press began chipping, then hammering away at the Administration's war policies and its domestic policies regarding security. When the debate on whether or not to invade Iraq came, there was no doubt which side of the discussion the press -- and most of the Democrats -- would be on.

Predictably, the historically anti-US, European socialist Left closed ranks with the Democrats and the academic Left. It also fell in line with the neo-communist-organized antiwar movement in America that was taking shape. With the first wave of antiwar street protests, the Democratic Party's mission to reacquire power lurched into high gear. That mission would be accomplished at the risk of weakening America's security and at the expense of her standing in the world.

Shortly after the US invaded Iraq, Party leaders and their friends in the media started kidney-punching America, pounding away at the wartime president, deriding his administrators and his policies, harping on and grossly magnifying each setback in Iraq.

On the home front, every Bush policy designed to protect America from further attacks was framed and presented by Democratic Party leaders and leftwing 527 groups as direct assaults on the US Constitution and as being destructive to the Bill of Rights. The press followed the Party's antagonistic lead, flooding the news with disproportionate coverage of subjects like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, US so-called torture and rendition; so-called domestic spying; the so-called rights of terrorists in Guantanamo; the so-called evils of the Patriot Act; the so-called lies of George W. Bush; the so-called warmongering of Dick Cheney and the so-called greed and evil of defense-related corporations like Halliburton.

The effect was to frame isolated incidents of US atrocities and other malfeasances that occur in any war as emblematic of the entire Iraq enterprise. A narrative of an administration hell-bent on imperialistic conquest, spying on Americans and shredding the Constitution concretized within most American and international newsrooms. And who can forget the endemic, Left-generated conflation of the Bush Administration with the Nazis and the invention and promotion of theories that Bush and Cheney planned and directed the attacks of 911 to advance a secret desire of turning America into a fascist state. Those theories were boosted by prominent leftists, including respected author Gore Vidal, who wrote a book promoting such a theory. The collective message of the anti-Bush noise machine was clear and diabolical: The President of the United States was a bigger threat to world peace than men like Osama Bin Laden were. Bush was more evil than Adolf Hitler.

The withering attacks on the Bush Administration took their toll. Bush was slowly becoming a pariah, even within his own political party. His approval ratings, burdened by the vicious attacks on his character and constant attacks on his war policies, sank like a stone.

By the 2004 election, the Democrats' strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush was poised to render results. But a lackluster campaign by a wooden candidate, John Kerry, and serious attacks on Kerry's credibility and patriotism by 250 decorated war veterans caused the Party's presidential effort to fail, but just barely.

In spite of that loss, or perhaps buoyed by the closeness of it, the Democrat assault on America's President and on America's war-time morale intensified as the 2006 congressional elections approached. Efforts to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq were sputtering and support for Bush and Republican politicians sagged in direct proportion to every real, over-reported and media invented setback there.

It is common knowledge, supported by history, that war is fraught with uncertainties and surprises that cannot always be planned in advance for. It is the side in a conflict that best adapts and adjusts in response to those vagaries that usually wins. The slaughter of 5,000 US soldiers at Omaha beach in a single day during WWII was not trumpeted by the US media to America and to the world as evidence of imminent US defeat against the Nazis, nor did US politicians of that era cry for withdrawal from the larger battle when disasters like Omaha Beach and Corregidor happened. They did not publicize enemy successes during the vicious battles of Guadalcanal nor did they pronounce defeat whenever Americans suffered setbacks while fighting the fanatical Japanese. But throughout every phase of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts nearly every negative event, every disaster or perceived disaster, exploded across the front pages of the major US papers and was broadcast by Democrats from the halls of Congress as evidence of Bush's malevolence, stupidity or incompetence and as evidence of impending American defeat. Michael Yon, the Iraq conflict's Ernie Pyle, best sums up the result of that grinding media assault on the Iraq War and its American leaders:

"Enemy dominance of the media battle space translated quite directly into military setbacks. Terrorists from many countries swarmed into Iraq to be part of the victory they saw happening on the TV screens."

Deliberately or not, the Democratic Party and the leftwing media, with their endless criticisms of the Iraq conflict, and their endless public comparisons of that war to Vietnam, sent a direct message to the rag-tag army of ultra-violent terrorists in Iraq who were detonating car bombs in crowded marketplaces, beheading and mutilating civilians and killing American and Coalition soldiers: "Keep the violence up just a bit longer. We'll take care of wearing down America's will to win from within, just like during Vietnam."

Even violent, under-equipped sociopaths facing the most powerful military on earth know a gift horse when they see one, and react accordingly.

On the other hand, nearly every bit of positive war news was whispered in quiet sentences or totally ignored. Today, with the Iraq venture steadily closing in on success, the amount of news about Iraq has slowed to barely a drip. That is quite telling.

Under the deliberate, massive media barrage of negative news about the war and hampered by a lack of coherent strategy with which to counter it, Republican prospects for the retention of Congressional majorities in 2006 looked shaky at best. Then the Congressman Larry Craig sex scandal broke and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate were lost.

In less than five years, the Democratic Party had gone from being an increasingly irrelevant political minority to controlling both houses of Congress.

A Strategy Emboldened

Buoyed by the 2006 election success of their Vietnam-era strategy, Democrat leaders and other leftists began openly calling Iraq an ‘unjust' war, an "unwinnable" war and relying on the short memories of most Americans to hide the fact that many prominent Democrats had actually voted to authorize it. Jesse Macbeth, Jimmy Massey, Scott Beauchamp and other antiwar frauds who admitted faking tales of atrocities committed by US soldiers were praised by the press and the Democrats as heroic dissenters against the evil Bush war machine, their false tales of butchery and bloodlust spread far and wide. Widespread, positive coverage was given to antiwar, anti-American, pro-terrorist activists like Cindy Sheehan, who was sanctimoniously christened America's "Peace Mom" by leading Democrats and the leftwing media, while true American heroes, patriots like Paul R. Smith and Jason L. Dunham, both Medal of Honor winners, both killed in the act of protecting America from her enemies, received virtual media silence for their heroism and sacrifice and little public acknowledgment from Democrat politicians.

The press and the Democrats did however publicly acknowledge American soldiers when they were killed, when they spun tales of atrocities, when they groused or when they returned home and fell through the cracks. They wanted Americans to be ashamed of their soldiers, to be ashamed of the Commander-in-Chief, to be ashamed of America itself. They needed America on its knees -- disillusioned, angry at its leaders and their policies -- hopeless, sick of hearing about the war and demoralized because then, out of desperation, they would naturally look to Democratic politicians for relief.

con't

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2008 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
con't

At a glance, Obama's quick rise in the world of presidential politics is puzzling. His background, including his personal and political associations, is antithetical to the historical stature of the American presidency. It could also be said that given his non-traditional upbringing, his schooling in radical politics and his seeming preference for friends and mentors who view America disdainfully, he is antithetical to the traditional American Experience itself. Obama is young and he has less than one Senate term under his belt. Neither quality is particularly presidential. Questions of patriotism dog him, as do questions about his religious and ethnic heritage. Many of the people who tutored and supported him through his personal and political journeys from the backwaters of Indonesia to the main stage of US presidential politics are contemptuous of the US. Some of them publicly express outright hatred of the country Obama now seeks to lead.

So why is so controversial a candidate even in the running to be president?

Because he reflects his Party's leftist agenda, has unique, prodigious manipulative talents and equally impressive Hollywood attributes. These are indispensable in closing out the dangerous, deliberate game the Democrats have been playing with America's security and its perceived stature in the world. It is a game that has been going on beneath our noses since the election of 2000. Its object is simple: the acquisition of power regardless of cost to the Nation. It is something the American people must be reminded of, made aware of, before they enter the voting booth in November.

A strategy of contention vs. the risk of irrelevance

The opening event setting the stage for Obama's ascension was the contentious 2000 election. When Bush was declared its winner, Democrats fumed that the election had been stolen by the Republicans. The promotion of that canard within leftwing and media circles and the personal quality of the resentment of Bush it provoked within the Democratic Party is important to mention, since a similar canard that morphed from it and became popularized -- "Bush Stole the Election," -- became the base justification for the future blizzard of untruths used to disparage the President. It also provided justification for the widespread disrespect and abuse President Bush endures to this day, disrespect that would be far more deserved if he had indeed illegally assumed power.

Less than a year after the 2000 election was finalized, September 11, 2001 arrived. In the baleful blink of a jihadist's eye, most of the issues that normally occupy the American polity in peaceful times were swept off the table. Issues that normally help Americans differentiate between the two major political parties and define those party's respective agendas -- health care, taxes, the environment, social programs and civil rights -- took a far-distant back seat to two far more pressing matters: Exacting justice for the 911 atrocities and protecting the homeland from additional attacks.

Since the American electorate historically views Republicans as being more competent and trustworthy than Democrats in matters of war and security, and since all other issues that Democrats could normally use to make political hay with had been blasted off the table by 911, the Party was facing the threat of irrelevance. There was another factor that did not bode well for the future political fortunes of the Democratic Party in the wake of the 911 attacks: George W. Bush had become an extraordinarily popular president.

Whatever patriotism was stoked within the hearts of Democratic Party leaders by that September Day of Infamy was likely tempered by an unsettling reality: If America stayed united behind George W. Bush and the Republicans during the coming military response to 911, the Democratic Party would be out of power for a long time.

As the wreckage of the Towers was being scoured for the remains of the murdered, the Democratic Party faced an extended stay in the political wilderness. It must have been an extraordinarily bitter pill to swallow, especially on the heels of its having lost the presidency by a tattered handful of contested votes. As things stood, Democrat prospects for winning it back anytime soon looked grim. Americans did not switch horses in the middle of a war -- unless they perceived a war to be headed towards defeat. This was especially true after the 911 attacks. The Democratic Party, with its conflict-averse, Vietnam-era mentality would be naturally unattractive to a war-time electorate seeking vengeance for the mass murder of its brothers and sisters. Pragmatically speaking, the only hope the Party had then, in terms of making inroads with post-911 American voters, rested on a single option: overlaying the US military response to 911 with a template -- the rhetoric, look and feel of the Vietnam debacle of years earlier, portraying those directing and supporting the war and those fighting it on the ground, as corrupt, inept and malevolent.

As the Democrats weighed their narrow, post-911 political options and saw a grim future, at least a few of them might have considered Jimmy Carter's triumph on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate, and felt a flicker of hope.

A Vietnam strategy develops

Soon after 911, as America shifted into a wartime footing, leftists in academia and in the Legal Left began testing the waters of dissent by deconstructing Bush and the Republicans and blaming American foreign policy for the 911 attacks. Several professors at major Universities openly proclaimed their wishes to see America defeated and disgraced. One of them, Professor Nicholas DeGenova of Columbia University, announced to those attending a ‘peace' conference at the school shortly after the 911 attacks that he "wished for a million Mogadishus," a reference to the loss of 18 US serviceman during a mission to capture a warlord in Somalia in 1997. DeGenova also said, "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," and referred to patriotism as a form of white supremacism adding that "My rejection of U.S. nationalism is an appeal to liberate our own political imaginations such that we might usher in a radically different world in which we will not remain the prisoners of U.S. global domination." Since DeGenova is an American collecting an excellent salary at a prestigious American university, it is puzzling who he meant by "we."

When the Democratic Party joined the academic Left's undermining of the Administration's military response to 911, a lethargic Republican public relations machine and inarticulate President were no match for the polish and reach of the influential leftwing media assisting the Democrats. Within months of 911 the Party and its media assistants began manufacturing anti-Bush, antiwar propaganda with impunity. Prominent leftwing intellectuals spoke openly of America's culpability in the 911 disaster even as the Towers still smoldered and the Nation wept, sowing seeds of doubt and divisiveness amongst a population that had been traumatized and then unified by the terrorist attacks. The press began chipping, then hammering away at the Administration's war policies and its domestic policies regarding security. When the debate on whether or not to invade Iraq came, there was no doubt which side of the discussion the press -- and most of the Democrats -- would be on.

Predictably, the historically anti-US, European socialist Left closed ranks with the Democrats and the academic Left. It also fell in line with the neo-communist-organized antiwar movement in America that was taking shape. With the first wave of antiwar street protests, the Democratic Party's mission to reacquire power lurched into high gear. That mission would be accomplished at the risk of weakening America's security and at the expense of her standing in the world.

Shortly after the US invaded Iraq, Party leaders and their friends in the media started kidney-punching America, pounding away at the wartime president, deriding his administrators and his policies, harping on and grossly magnifying each setback in Iraq.

On the home front, every Bush policy designed to protect America from further attacks was framed and presented by Democratic Party leaders and leftwing 527 groups as direct assaults on the US Constitution and as being destructive to the Bill of Rights. The press followed the Party's antagonistic lead, flooding the news with disproportionate coverage of subjects like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, US so-called torture and rendition; so-called domestic spying; the so-called rights of terrorists in Guantanamo; the so-called evils of the Patriot Act; the so-called lies of George W. Bush; the so-called warmongering of Dick Cheney and the so-called greed and evil of defense-related corporations like Halliburton.

The effect was to frame isolated incidents of US atrocities and other malfeasances that occur in any war as emblematic of the entire Iraq enterprise. A narrative of an administration hell-bent on imperialistic conquest, spying on Americans and shredding the Constitution concretized within most American and international newsrooms. And who can forget the endemic, Left-generated conflation of the Bush Administration with the Nazis and the invention and promotion of theories that Bush and Cheney planned and directed the attacks of 911 to advance a secret desire of turning America into a fascist state. Those theories were boosted by prominent leftists, including respected author Gore Vidal, who wrote a book promoting such a theory. The collective message of the anti-Bush noise machine was clear and diabolical: The President of the United States was a bigger threat to world peace than men like Osama Bin Laden were. Bush was more evil than Adolf Hitler.

The withering attacks on the Bush Administration took their toll. Bush was slowly becoming a pariah, even within his own political party. His approval ratings, burdened by the vicious attacks on his character and constant attacks on his war policies, sank like a stone.

By the 2004 election, the Democrats' strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush was poised to render results. But a lackluster campaign by a wooden candidate, John Kerry, and serious attacks on Kerry's credibility and patriotism by 250 decorated war veterans caused the Party's presidential effort to fail, but just barely.

In spite of that loss, or perhaps buoyed by the closeness of it, the Democrat assault on America's President and on America's war-time morale intensified as the 2006 congressional elections approached. Efforts to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq were sputtering and support for Bush and Republican politicians sagged in direct proportion to every real, over-reported and media invented setback there.

con't

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2008 04:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
con't

It is common knowledge, supported by history, that war is fraught with uncertainties and surprises that cannot always be planned in advance for. It is the side in a conflict that best adapts and adjusts in response to those vagaries that usually wins. The slaughter of 5,000 US soldiers at Omaha beach in a single day during WWII was not trumpeted by the US media to America and to the world as evidence of imminent US defeat against the Nazis, nor did US politicians of that era cry for withdrawal from the larger battle when disasters like Omaha Beach and Corregidor happened. They did not publicize enemy successes during the vicious battles of Guadalcanal nor did they pronounce defeat whenever Americans suffered setbacks while fighting the fanatical Japanese. But throughout every phase of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts nearly every negative event, every disaster or perceived disaster, exploded across the front pages of the major US papers and was broadcast by Democrats from the halls of Congress as evidence of Bush's malevolence, stupidity or incompetence and as evidence of impending American defeat. Michael Yon, the Iraq conflict's Ernie Pyle, best sums up the result of that grinding media assault on the Iraq War and its American leaders:

"Enemy dominance of the media battle space translated quite directly into military setbacks. Terrorists from many countries swarmed into Iraq to be part of the victory they saw happening on the TV screens."

Deliberately or not, the Democratic Party and the leftwing media, with their endless criticisms of the Iraq conflict, and their endless public comparisons of that war to Vietnam, sent a direct message to the rag-tag army of ultra-violent terrorists in Iraq who were detonating car bombs in crowded marketplaces, beheading and mutilating civilians and killing American and Coalition soldiers: "Keep the violence up just a bit longer. We'll take care of wearing down America's will to win from within, just like during Vietnam."

Even violent, under-equipped sociopaths facing the most powerful military on earth know a gift horse when they see one, and react accordingly.

On the other hand, nearly every bit of positive war news was whispered in quiet sentences or totally ignored. Today, with the Iraq venture steadily closing in on success, the amount of news about Iraq has slowed to barely a drip. That is quite telling.

Under the deliberate, massive media barrage of negative news about the war and hampered by a lack of coherent strategy with which to counter it, Republican prospects for the retention of Congressional majorities in 2006 looked shaky at best. Then the Congressman Larry Craig sex scandal broke and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate were lost.

In less than five years, the Democratic Party had gone from being an increasingly irrelevant political minority to controlling both houses of Congress.

A Strategy Emboldened

Buoyed by the 2006 election success of their Vietnam-era strategy, Democrat leaders and other leftists began openly calling Iraq an ‘unjust' war, an "unwinnable" war and relying on the short memories of most Americans to hide the fact that many prominent Democrats had actually voted to authorize it. Jesse Macbeth, Jimmy Massey, Scott Beauchamp and other antiwar frauds who admitted faking tales of atrocities committed by US soldiers were praised by the press and the Democrats as heroic dissenters against the evil Bush war machine, their false tales of butchery and bloodlust spread far and wide. Widespread, positive coverage was given to antiwar, anti-American, pro-terrorist activists like Cindy Sheehan, who was sanctimoniously christened America's "Peace Mom" by leading Democrats and the leftwing media, while true American heroes, patriots like Paul R. Smith and Jason L. Dunham, both Medal of Honor winners, both killed in the act of protecting America from her enemies, received virtual media silence for their heroism and sacrifice and little public acknowledgment from Democrat politicians.

The press and the Democrats did however publicly acknowledge American soldiers when they were killed, when they spun tales of atrocities, when they groused or when they returned home and fell through the cracks. They wanted Americans to be ashamed of their soldiers, to be ashamed of the Commander-in-Chief, to be ashamed of America itself. They needed America on its knees -- disillusioned, angry at its leaders and their policies -- hopeless, sick of hearing about the war and demoralized because then, out of desperation, they would naturally look to Democratic politicians for relief.

The technique of creating discontent and "talking all things Bush down" paid big dividends for the Democrats in 2006. Devoid of credible ideas and solutions, they had nevertheless worked a strategy leading to the re-acquisition of at least some of the political power they had lost during their wilderness years after the Reagan Revolution. The 2006 election confirmed the effectiveness of their "destroy Bush" election strategy. And so the Democratic Party's attacks on Bush and the Republicans increased to a ferocious level, even as Iraq turned a corner towards security and political stability.

When to the Party's dismay the Bush troop surge took hold and the situation in Iraq began improving, the Democrats' defeatist rhetoric reached a desperate, farcical crescendo: "The war is lost," (even though objective measurements indicated that it was being won) crowed many Democrats, including prominent ones like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Prominent Democrat John Murtha publicly tried and convicted US Marines involved in the Haditha incident before those Marines even went to trial. "Bush lied us into war" became the catch-phrase of almost the entire Democratic Party leadership, even though before the war had commenced many of those same Democrats had access to the same information that the Bush Administration used to justify it.

Power at any cost indeed, even at the defeat and humiliation of one's own country.

Now the 2008 election is upon us. Whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, the economy or the overblown dangers of anthropogenic global warming, the Democratic Party and its media shills continue crafting and pounding home messages telling us that our national problems, real and imagined, are caused by Bush and the Republicans, They tell us that due to Bush and his policies, our nation is an evil one, our nation is hated by the world, our nation is fractured into pieces, our nation is murdering innocents, our nation is the world's biggest polluter, our nation is a den of racism, our nation is stingy, our citizens are impoverished, our economy has been destroyed. Collectively, this endless stream of buckshot propaganda adds up to a single, powerful and demoralizing statement: America has come apart at the seams - and George W. Bush and the Republicans are to blame for it.

Though the Democrats and their media shills are responsible for creating that illusion, Bush and the Republicans are to blame for generally ignoring or responding weakly to the Left's relentless assault on America's war-time morale. Instead of using the power of the White House pulpit to broadcast a steady, convincing message on the importance of presenting a unified national front in the face of totalitarian Islam, America is instead often treated to incongruous platitudes like, "Islam is a religion of peace." Instead of a forceful, direct calling-out of the Democratic Party, the State Department and CIA on their numerous subversions of Bush policies, those subversions are usually referred to by the White House as "disagreements."

Because of the Administration's seeming refusal to conduct investigations leading to the indictment of those leaking classified security information to the press, and thereby to the enemy, the Democrat-leftwing press consortium has been given implied consent to inundate America with torrents of articles and highly publicized tell-all books from former government officials, some revealing sensitive war-time information, most of them highly critical of America's Commander-in-Chief -- all published while American soldiers and civilians were, (and are), on the ground in combat areas, directly in harm's way.

With the exception of the Vietnam War, never before in America's history have such things happened while hostilities were ongoing. And what happened during Vietnam was tame in comparison. Worst of all, due to the subversive Democrat-media barrage, and crippled by its public relations ineptness, Bush and the Republicans could never quite convince the American people of a simple reality: that they are all in the fight of their lives against an implacable, dedicated, totalitarian death cult, one seeking nothing less than America's utter destruction, and that the fight demands focus and sacrifice from all Americans. Instead of rousing, convincing, patriotic speeches, the public was usually treated to lame utterances from Bush like, "Its hard work . . . we're working hard . . . we're making progress."

The end result of the inability of Bush and his PR team to own and promote the Big Ideas necessary to have focused America on the prize of victory in Iraq and on a greater victory over the worldwide forces of totalitarian Islam, is best summed up by three, short sentences written on a whiteboard in a US Marines barracks:

America is not at war.
The Marine Corp is at war.
America is at the mall.

It is no wonder the American electorate has slipped into a foul mood -- little wonder why it seems that its heart is not in the fight against the totalitarian theocrats who threaten it. For seven years Americans have been pounded with messages that their country and its leaders are unjust, warmongering, and evil and hated by all -- it deserves whatever evil it gets.

America now has serious doubts about itself. Its citizens have been pummeled with those terrible messages for so long now, that many of them believe them to be true. They are vulnerable to the Democratic Party's sudden mantra of Hope and Change and Progress. In a nutshell, here are the mechanics of the crude, hate-based initiative the Democratic Party and its media wing have forced on America since 2001:

1) Invent, inflate, and over-report bad war news. Tie all bad news to Bush and/or Republicans. At the same time, ignore or downplay good news as it relates to Bush, the Republicans or the war(s).

2) Create the illusion of widespread, honest dissent to Bush policies by giving plenty of airtime to leftwing groups and individuals historically antagonistic toward the projection of US, and only US, power. Fail to report the true agendas of those groups -- when covering antiwar, anti-Bush protests and events, make sure to meticulously portray antiwar marches as spontaneous gatherings of mainstream, mom and pop Americans.

3) Downplay, ignore and disparage American success wherever you find it.

4) Exalt in, sympathize with and mythologize America's enemies, vilify and deconstruct its protectors.

5) Downplay America's generosity and righteousness. Recast a mission that includes saving a nation from a murdering brute and his rapist, sociopath sons as a brutal occupation in the pursuit of American Empire.

6) Fill the Nation's airwaves, from sea to shining sea, with questionable and sometimes outright false tales of Bush-related misery, butchery, fraud and waste.

7) Foment as much national anxiety and hatred of the Republican leader as money and can buy. George Soros and other moneyed leftists will fund you. Give airtime and print coverage to leftist radicals and Democrats who call Bush a war criminal. Present those radicals and their crazy plans to try President Bush and Vice President Cheney for "war crimes" as worthy of consideration.

8) Provide coverage to leftwing intellectuals and scientists making anti-Bush statements. Present them as legitimate, non-partisan experts in their fields. Publicize their specious, politicized findings, present those findings as non-partisan, accurate and objective.

9) Present major news coverage of every antiwar protest you can find, whether it draws 100 people or 10,000 people, ignore all pro-US, pro-Iraq War, pro-troop rallies completely or portray their attendees as violence-prone, fringe-lunatic jingoists.

10) Blame a hurricane's aftermath on Bush. Give news coverage to racists and Democrat crackpots who say Bush and Cheney actually caused the hurricane and blew up levees to kill African Americans. Keep that Bush-hate buzz alive at all costs.

11) Give airtime and print coverage to groups and individuals accusing George W. Bush of having engineered and directed the 911 attacks. Remember, it is not the credibility of accusations that count in shaping public opinion now, but the seriousness and sheer volume of accusations that do.

12) To sow further strife, anxiety and confusion, continue stoking the fires of racial tension and class warfare.

13) Once the onslaught of lies, moral relativisms and crazy notions have created a self-sustaining, luciferous, widespread unhappiness and confusion, dangle a fat bait of silence and tranquility -- of Hope, Change and Progress -- crowning your deceptive achievement by hooking the same fish you made hungry.

That is the immoral, destructive strategy used by the Democratic Party, even as our soldier sons and daughters have been fighting and sometimes dying to protect us, in the years since 911 to recapture power it unjustly covets as its Divine right.

Now, a master psychological fisherman, Barack Obama, dangles a bait of salvation. As a highly experienced practitioner of Saul Alinsky's radical arts, he is perfect for the job. Those who know Obama well, like Mike Kruglik, who helped train him in Alinsky's methods would agree:

"He [Obama] was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation. . . As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

It is truly audacious of the Democrats to entice us with their slick-tongued messiah, one who appears out of nowhere and graciously offers to scrape clean and sanitize the same plate of defeat he, his party and their assistants in the media served to America for nearly eight years in the middle of a war. Soon we will see if a majority of the American electorate accepts that offer, or if it rejects it, sending the Democratic Party back to confront the same irrelevance it risked the safety and security of our nation to avoid.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_audacity_of_the_democrats.html

IP: Logged

venusdeindia
unregistered
posted June 08, 2008 03:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ok here's the thing,
we have been a nation founded since its inception as a Democracy.

i personally find very little difference between our founding principles of democracy and what the founding fathers envisioned for america, except that blacks and women were initially second rate citizens but that changed before WE became a democracy.
so exactly what was the initial differece between the democrats and republicans, i would like to know ??

also , being a colony sucked dry from the wealthiest nation in the 1600's to a third world hell of poverty and disease by the East India company pimps of her Highness,Queen of England... initially in 1947 our democracy WAS influenced by socialistc ideals ...given the the state the masses were in. but State interest in economic affairs proved expensive and unprofitable following which the capitalistic model was embraced. and the results are for ALL to see.

today our Socialistic Universal healthcare is availed of by Half of us and the other half who can afford private are doing so.

that aside MARXISM is no where to be seen AT ALL.hell 60 % of our popln is aged 16-40 and they love their Ipods, their Free university education,, their BPO salaries, the fact that our economy is one of the fastest growing...all due to capitalism. and any leader who talks of Socialist ideas is asking to get p* whipped.

i must admit, if the above is true....how can a political party get away with it ?

also how can a party that calls itself Democrats have communist leanings ?

personally i m more of a middle person...neither right not left and though i believe in keeping state and religion separate , as per our standards i am a conservative.

what i have read above is ....screwy at best. and this in america ???

also i admit some of this propoganda has found its way into Asian media and believe me ,no offence but Bush hasnt been made to look as evil as America itself

i now realise it was a a hoax, though now i dont know WHAT to think anymore

its just too screwy

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 08, 2008 04:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
that aside MARXISM is no where to be seen AT ALL.hell 60 % of our popln is aged 16-40 and they love their Ipods, their free university education. their BPO salaries, the fact that our economy is one of the fastest growing...all due to capitalism.

His imagination can't envision a place where that would be true. And you're right: American Democrats aren't Communists.

IP: Logged

venusdeindia
unregistered
posted June 08, 2008 04:42 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
more ... sighs...

quote:
American Democrats aren't Communists

so....its just baseless name calling ?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 08, 2008 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good questions VDI. I'll try to answer some of them.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 so it wasn't around at the inception of the United States in 1791 when the Constitution was ratified.

Lincoln was the first Republican President, elected in 1860.

The Democratic Party begin to evolve, come into being, in the 1790's and is arguably the oldest political party in the world. But in the early days it was known as the Democratic-Republican party and commonly referred to as Jeffersonian Democracy which favored a weak central government and strict interpretation and enforcement of the US Constitution. These are the Conservative Republican positions of today.

You asked how can a party which calls itself Democrats get away with leftist/Marxist leanings.

Simple, they don't call themselves Marxists, Socialists or Collectivists. They call themselves Progressives and Liberals. You will never hear one of them even bring up the word Communist, Marxist or Socialist...unless they experience a slip of the tongue....as Maxine Waters did when she let slip in a hearing that she wanted to "socialize" the US oil industry.

So far, the press, Republicans and Conservatives have let them get away with hiding behind the mask of Liberals but in the coming months and years, you're going to start hearing them called what they really are...Marxists and Socialists.

If you live in the United States VDI, then you are in a position to authenticate every word in the article I posted as true. Just take each statement and apply it to what you see and hear coming off the Marxist democrat party. Don't listen to a word THEY say about themselves. Look to see what they've done, are doing and saying about the United States, the US military and American institutions. It's been a steady stream of disgusting contempt and ridicule.

There isn't much or anything in this article I haven't said here on this forum and on CE. This writer just put it all together..or most of it together and laid it out plain and simple.

If you find something in the article with which you disagree or on which you want clarification, I'll attempt clarification.


acoustic, the modern democrat party congress is mostly Socialists and Communists.

And why not since the Marxists at Move On Dot Org say they own the democrat party. You see, they say they bought it...with the Marxist money of George Soros..the Marxist.

Bought and paid for and so is O'Bomber whom the Marxist George Soros supports.

One day we're going to find out where all the O'Bomber money is really coming from.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 08, 2008 02:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, half the nation votes Communist, Socialist, Marxist. The only reason why anyone would hear these terms being used more and more often is the Republican tendency towards juvenile name calling. As you yourself have pointed out, the Democratic Party is now the party of the rich. Wealth comes through Capitalism. That means Democrats are better Capitalists than Republicans.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 08, 2008 03:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, that's right acoustic. Though they keep it well under wraps in their speeches they can't hide it in how they actually vote.

The desire to socialize the entire healthcare system. The desire to socialize the oil industry. The desire to expand the role and scope of government. The desire to load up private enterprise with crushing burdensome regulation and red tape. The desire to build a huge bureaucracy. The desire to tell everyone what they can do, can't do and interfere in citizens choices as to how they live their lives, what they drive, what they eat and where they live, how much energy they can use. The desire to tell people what they can do with their own property. The desire to curtail religious liberty. The desire to curtail free speech. Their utter contempt for the United States, it's history and it's institutions. Their utter contempt for the US military.

Oh yeah, Marxists, Socialists and other Collectivists.

Most people just work and don't pay a lot of attention...until the shiiit hits the fan and then they go looking for the culprits. Culprits aren't going to be hard to find and the leftist press isn't going to be able to shield these leftist loons much longer. Americans just don't much trust the leftist press...and that's just about all of them.

So, you are going to start hearing the M for Marxist word, the C for Communist word and the S for Socialist word as their masks get ripped off in public.

Way, way, way past time.

BTW, who's your grubbly little Socialist, Communist, Marxist Representative?

I already know who your grubbly little Socialist, Communist, Marxist Senators are.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 08, 2008 04:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://mcnerney.house.gov/

IP: Logged

Mercury2008
unregistered
posted June 09, 2008 04:52 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I love how some paraniod right wing nut throws words like socialist, communist and Marxist when more and more evidence is coming out that Bush, Cheney and Rove are traitors to the American people who intentionally manipulated the government for their political agenda.

Sorry, but grubby traitors trump grubby socialists, communists and Marxist any day, according to the Constitution and Bill or Rights. On one hand, the first group is in grievous violation of the laws of our lands and of the deepest held political beliefs of our country. The other groups, if they are indeed what Dipppo's claiming they are, are examples of the diversity of political views in this nation which are protected by the Bill of Rights.

But of course, a nutjob like DiPippo hates it when people point out valid, sober distinctions like that to debunk his psychotic alarmist rantings.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 09:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I love it when a Kool-Aid drinker who swallows every drop has no idea what they are talking about because they are so intellectually incurious they let others do their thinking for them.

The Kool-Aid drinking conspiracy nuts fall into one of 2 different categories.

Those who say Bush bombed the WTC and Pentagon to take America to war..to enrich his oil company buddies...and make himself world dictator.

That nutty tasting Kool-Aid is refuted by the Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.

For those who actually have an intellectual curiosity bump, you can read that report here, including their findings. This is a bipartisan report which details the failure of US intelligence agencies to gather, analyze and disseminate intelligence data and conclusions among themselves..other intelligence agencies, disseminate their findings to government officials..including the President of the United States who make decisions based on intelligence data and which failed to disseminate their data to others within their own agencies.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

The other report to read but only for those who really want to know how 9/11 happened, who dropped the ball, who attacked the United States and how it could have been prevented is the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't expect the Kool-Aid drinking conspiracy nuts to actually read this report. That would sour their Kool-Aid.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

The other category of nutty Kool-Aid drinkers are of the various nuts who say "Bush lied, people died" of which there are various derivatives but all saying basically the same thing...that Bush lied and manipulated intelligence data to lead the United States into war.

You are once again referred to the 9/11 Commission Report which examined this nonsense and found there was no manipulation of intelligence data and no pressure on intelligence agencies or analysts to produce predetermined intelligence findings. In this report, you will find Bush didn't lie but Richard Clark and Joe Wilson definitely did lie. Clark in his book and Joe Wilson on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

For a perspective other than a US perspective, you can read the Lord Hutton Report which reached the same conclusion. Bush didn't lie.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm

Warning: reading these reports is hazardous to Kool-Aid drinkers taste buds.

For Kool-Aid drinkers, I refer you to move on dot org, daily kos, Puffington Post and/or democrat underground who make Kool-Aid tailored to suit the taste buds of Kool-Aid drinkers. For Kool-Aid drinkers, theirs is good to the last drop.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Congress' Red Army Caucus -- part 2
Posted: November 23, 1998
1:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah

The Internet has been buzzing for the last week or two with discussions and frantic e-mails of concern about Congress' so-called "Progressive Caucus."

I'm a little surprised, since I first wrote about this group of socialist subversives back in July -- warning that its approximately 60 members, including Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and John Conyers, represent a large, unyielding voting and lobbying bloc pushing the government inevitably toward the goals of its Democratic Socialists of America sponsors. I referred to the group then and again now as Congress' Red Army Caucus. No other shorthand description could possibly do them justice.

Think about it. There are at least five Bolsheviks on the House Judiciary Committee. Do you think anything -- any evidence -- could ever persuade them to break with their party line against impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. Imagine the outcry if there were five members belonging to some other extremist hate group -- American Nazi Party, Ku Klux Klan, etc.

Yet, there's no moral difference. The Democratic Socialists' goal is clear from their own literature. The goal is Communism. Never mind that the history of that system is littered with more death, oppression and destruction than any other "ism." Never mind that it has been discredited everywhere it has been tried. The DSA believes the right people just haven't been in charge. They want to try it here -- in the United States of America.

The Progressive Caucus and congressional members are a big part of their game plan. The Democratic Socialists actively seek out "celebrities" for outreach purposes. They use them to recruit -- to achieve mainstream credibility.

"While it's certainly true that one can't build a mass socialist movement simply by recruiting celebrities, they are very important in legitimizing both the organization and the concept of socialism," explains an organizational document geared toward its youth program. "When you tell someone that Ron Dellums, Barbara Eisenreich, Gloria Steinem, Wimpy Winpisinger and Ed Asner are members," it helps take the horns off of socialism.

Furthermore, the Democratic Socialists' chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," the same document explains. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Yet, that radical subculture is alive and well within the Democratic Socialists of America and its affiliate group, the Progressive Caucus of Congress.

Take the song list at the DSA Website. It features, first and foremost, "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism. Another classic is "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." Here are the lyrics for that little ditty: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Then there's that memorable old ballad, "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" Never heard that one? You haven't been in the congressional Progressive Caucus, lately, I guess: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

Gee, imagine what the totalitarians in the Progressive Caucus what do if they found that kind of extremist "hate speech" on the Website of a right-wing congressional caucus.

Make no mistake. These folks are revolutionaries. They may dress in suit and tie. They may not carry guns and bandoleers. But the Red Army Caucus in Congress is at the vanguard of a Communist movement that has no respect for the U.S. Constitution, individual rights and the freedoms America takes for granted today.

Their rhetoric is a little more sophisticated at times than Stalin's, but the goals are the same -- a dictatorship of the proletariat, that oh, so elusive worker's paradise, re-education camps, you get the picture.

In one article on the DSA site, a "fundamental restructuring of our socio-economic order" is demanded.

"While the freedoms of democratic capitalism are gains of popular struggle to be cherished, democratic socialists argue that the values of liberal democracy can only be fulfilled when the economy as well as the state is democratically controlled."

Gee, I can hardly wait.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14625

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 10:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmmm, last name on the list is Robert Wexler (FL-19). Now where oh where have I seen this name lately? Oh yeah on the website of the "Good Works on Earth" website and they weren't beating Wexler up, they were marching in lockstep with Wexler.

Progressive Congressional Caucus Member List

Co-Chairs
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)
Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4)
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-5)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-3)
Hon. George Miller (CA-7)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-1)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-6)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 12:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh my God, now even the Washington Post...that great bastion of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" is saying Bush didn't lie. As their basis for saying so, they quote from the just released congressional committee report...chaired by demoscat John (Jay) Rockefeller...a ring leader in the "vast right wing conspiracy"

Not only did Bush not lie to lead America to war; Bush didn't lie about anything at all.

Everything Bush said was substantiated by intelligence reports he saw and the Congress also saw including all the demoscat members who voted for the use of military action against Saddam's regime.

Now, perhaps brain dead leftist morons will finally shut their pie holes and abandon their "Bush lied, people died" bullshiit.

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17


Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 04:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No known Congressional members are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Nor is there a Communist song list on the DSA website.

Nor is the Progressive Caucus affiliated with the DSA as SURELY they would have a link to them amongst this long list of sites they link to: http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=7&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=7

Next!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 07:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess you neglected to observe the date of that article acoustic. It was 1998 and the shiiit really hit the fan..to the point all references to the DSA was taken down from the Progressive Caucus website. Haha, even the press were asking questions.

Democrat Socialists of America are big, big, big backers of O'Bomber. No need whatsoever to wonder why.

Congress' Red Army caucus
Posted: July 28, 1998
1:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to continue funding of the National Endowment of the Arts, against delaying implementation of a national ID number to track the way Americans access medical care, and to continue preferential trade practices with Red China.
There were many other bad votes in Congress last week. But these were prime examples of how Washington just doesn't get it -- that it is out of touch with grass-roots America and, more importantly, with fundamental constitutional principles and basic concepts of American freedom.

There are many explanations for the failures of the 104th and 105th Congress, which came to power with promises of revolutionary change and a reversal of 40 years of bigger and more centralized government. The new leadership bears the brunt of the responsibility. After all, they were the ones who promised things would be different on their watch. They either fooled us about their intentions in the first place, or they failed miserably.

Yet, it is impossible to ignore one other important contributing factor seldom addressed by the press and pundit class.

I'm talking about the seemingly permanent cadre of hard-core leftists in Congress -- people who know what they believe, know what they want and fight for it relentlessly, unlike most of the mushy-headed, unprincipled, compromise-at-any-cost, middle-of-the-road "Demorats" and "Republicons."

Let's call this caucus what it is -- Congress' very own Red Army. They are card-carrying members of the so-called 'Progressive Caucus,' marching the nation inevitably toward its self-proclaimed socialist ideal.

The names and faces change occasionally, but you can see a pretty current roster on the Web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. The caucus is led by avowed Socialist Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, Rep. Major Owens of New York, Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York, Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Retired Rep. Ron Dellums was a long-time member of the executive committee and a leading DSA member. His replacement and political protege, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, proudly joins the club in his footsteps.

Unlike most members of Congress, the Progressive Caucus has a purpose, an objective, a goal. It is "organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and the powerful."

"Our purpose is to present thoughtful, practical solutions to the economic and social problems facing America," says its statement of purpose. "Our people-based agenda extends from job creation to job training, to economic conversion, to single payer health-care reform, to adequate funding for the AIDS crisis, to environmental reform and to women's rights. "Now that the Cold War is over, this nation's budget and overall priorities must reflect that reality. We support further cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, and a substantial increase in social programs designed to meet the needs of low-and-middle-income American families. We believe that these goals fit within an overall commitment to deficit reduction."

To the untrained ear, that may not sound very radical. In fact, I suggest the majority of members of Congress would have little objection to such a mission statement -- which is how and why the Progressive Caucus is able to accomplish so much of its agenda. A politician with no principles is hardly a match for one who does -- even if those principles are bad ones that lead, history shows, to loss of freedom.

Congress' hard-core Red Army Caucus may only number about 60 members. But recent events and votes show there are probably no more than 60 members of Congress truly dedicated uncompromisingly and unswervingly to the principles upon which this nation was founded -- individual rights, limited government, free enterprise and the rule of law under the greatest Constitution ever devised by man.

Next time you wonder why our nation is tumbling down the slippery slope toward socialism, dictatorship and repression, don't forget the active role played by this group of dedicated, professional malcontents and the support they receive from most of the nation's powerful cultural institutions -- the government schools, the government-media complex and the pro-government foundation lobby, not to mention the current White House and much of the judicial branch of government.

The socialists are in this battle for the long haul. They never give up. Can the same be said of elected leaders who pay lip service to freedom?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14542

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 07:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Progressive Caucus

c/o Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-chairman
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC
20515

Phone :202-225-5871
URL: Website

Radical caucus of nearly six-dozen members of the House of Representatives
Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America


The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), the former mayor of Burlington and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

As of April 2007, the Progressive Caucus included Sanders (who became a U.S. Senator in 2006), Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and 69 members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

On November 11, 1999, the Progressive Caucus drafted its Position Paper on economic inequality. It reads, in part, as follows: "Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America's economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. … The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric."

In order "to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S. politics," the Progressive Caucus has worked closely with Progressive Challenge, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Progressive Challenge is a coalition through which the activities and talking points of leftist groups are synchronized and harmonized with one another, producing coordinated, mutually-reinforcing propaganda from some 200 seemingly-unconnected groups.

In 2005 the Progressive Caucus crafted its "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; higher taxes; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities; debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."

Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations' websites.

As of June 2006, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus: Neil Abercrombie; Tammy Baldwin; Xavier Becerra; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Corrine Brown; Sherrod Brown; Michael Capuano; Julia Carson; Donna Christensen; William "Lacy" Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; John Conyers; Elijah Cummings; Danny Davis; Peter DeFazio; Rosa DeLauro; Lane Evans; Sam Farr; Chaka Fattah; Bob Filner; Barney Frank; Raul Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Maurice Hinchey; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Carolyn Kilpatrick; Dennis Kucinich; Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; John Lewis; Ed Markey; Jim McDermott; James P. McGovern; Cynthia McKinney; George Miller; Gwen Moore; Jerrold Nadler; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John Olver; Major Owens; Ed Pastor; Donald Payne; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Rangel; Bobby Rush; Bernie Sanders; Jan Schakowsky; Jose Serrano; Louise Slaughter; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Bennie Thompson; John Tierney; Tom Udall; Nydia Velazquez; Maxine Waters; Diane Watson; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; and Lynn Woolsey.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 07:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Democratic Socialists of America...DSA

198 Broadway
Suite 700
New York, NY
10038

Phone :212-727-8610
URL: Website

Largets Socialist organization in the U.S.
Works closely with the radical Democratic Progressive Caucus

Describing itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International," the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. "We are socialists," reads the organization's boilerplate, "because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo." "To achieve a more just society," adds DSA, "many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. ... Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States."

Formed in 1983 during the Cold War by merging splinter factions of the Socialist movement, DSA brought together what it calls "former Socialists and Communists, former old leftists and new leftists, and many who had never been leftists at all." In its early years, DSA supported the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze program that would have consolidated Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe - under the banner of promoting "peace."

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: "Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. ... While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods."

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. "Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party," says DSA. "We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. ... Maybe sometime in the future ... an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats."

Until 1999, DSA hosted the website of the Progressive Caucus. Following a subsequent expose of the link between the two entities, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. But DSA and the Progressive Caucus remain intimately linked. All 58 Progressive Caucus members also belong to DSA. In addition to these members of Congress, other prominent DSA members include Noam Chomsky, Ed Asner, Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West, who serves as the organization's honorary Chair.

DSA was a Cosponsoring Organization of the April 25, 2004 "March for Women's Lives" held in Washington, D.C., a rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating for the right to unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

DSA was also a signatory to a petition of self-described "civil society" organizations that opposed globalization and "any effort to expand the powers of the World Trade Organization (WTO) through a new comprehensive round of trade liberalization."

DSA endorsed Pay Equity Now! - a petition jointly issued in 2000 by the National Organization for Women, the Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women, and the International Wages for Housework Campaign - to "expose and oppose U.S. opposition to pay equity" for women. The petition charged that: "the U.S. government opposes pay equity - equal pay for work of equal value - in national policy and international agreements"; "women are often segregated in caring and service work for low pay, much like the housework they are expected to do for no pay at home"; and "underpaying women is a massive subsidy to employers that is both sexist and racist."

In the wake of 9/11, DSA characterized the terror attacks as acts of retaliation for American-perpetrated global injustices. "We live in a world," said DSA, "organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world's population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure."

Strongly opposed to the U.S. War on Terror and America's post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba.

DSA publishes a quarterly journal titled Democratic Left, which discusses issues of concern to the organization and its constituents. The Founding Editor of this publication was Michael Harrington. DSA has also created a youth association called Young Democratic Socialists.

Annual fees for membership in DSA range from $15 to $60 per year. DSA raises additional funds via sales made through its online Book Shop, which features dozens of titles by leftist authors, among whom are Michael Harrington, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Todd Gitlin, Stanley Aronowitz, Howard Zinn, Eric Foner, Tom Hayden, Manning Marable, Michael Eric Dyson, and Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6428

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 08:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Until Republicans start providing proof for their assertions, I'm going to continue to believe them to be BS. Seriously. If you can't find a shred of proof to back up what you say, then why would anyone in their right mind believe you?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 09:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry, too bad acoustic. I don't need to convince you of anything at all.

You see acoustic, there's just entirely too much evidence coming from every direction...including the Democratic Socialists of America themselves..who say they're working through the democrat party to bring about their little socialist revolution.

That alone is enough to convince any reasonable person the demoscat party is marching in lockstep with socialists, communists and other collectivists.

Those demoscats would include O'Bomber whose associations are communist revolutionary terrorists, Marxist so called theologians and of course, the DSA.

In the case of Hillary, she declared she's not a Liberal but is rather a "Progressive".

How smelly.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 09:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, if you don't convince me, then you and the information you present will continue to be challenged. It's real easy to provide reasonable, objective doubt on this kind of thing.

The truth is that Republicans are terrible about documenting these things IF they are indeed legitimate. Even I find it hard to believe the 1998 Republican wasn't smart enough to do a PrtScrn when finding what could be tremendously damaging information. Doesn't take a genius to know how fast the internet can change information. Right?

Doesn't pass the conspiracy theory test, does it? Are you a conspiracy theorist now?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2008 11:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
acoustic, we both know I don't need to convince you of the Marxist, Socialist leanings of the democrat party.

You're already convinced. Every reasonable person who's seen what I've posted is convinced.

Now you, acoustic may deny...for ideological reasons, the overwhelming evidence of democrat leftism, but we both recognize the ring of truth when we hear it and everyone else does too.

The truth rings like a bell but your challenges ring hollow.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 10, 2008 01:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

quote:
The truth rings like a bell but your challenges ring hollow.

Little delusional there buddy.

quote:
You're already convinced. Every reasonable person who's seen what I've posted is convinced.

Why would they be? Democrats are better Capitalists, right? Yes, they are. You haven't and can't deny that, can you? You posted it yourself that Democrats are the party of the rich. How does that gel with Marxism? It doesn't. Not on any level.

And as far as trying to link American Democrats to Communism I think that's the farthest reach of delusion, especially as you equate Communism with murderous dictatorship. Half the nation, including the majority of highest educated would NOT stand for murderous dictatorship. That's what I know.

So yeah, you've got a tough job ahead of you. Perhaps you should write your Republican brethren, and get on them to save stuff so that they can reference it in perpetuity. Otherwise, any rational person is going to pose the very simple question, "Where's your proof?" It's pretty bad when you feel like you can just throw stuff out, and expect people will just take you at your word. That's a perfectly unjustified and unwarranted arrogance.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a