Bush* Enablers Should Be Ashamed

[Q]

- We tried to warn you. When you lay down with dogs you get fleas. When you appease fascists you get fascism. When you allow criminals to escape prosecution you encourage more crime. The Bush* administration has become like an American mafia... strong-arming opponents and critics into submission with the inevitability of their power.

- How did the Bush* executive branch get THIS much power? How were they able to do SO MUCH damage is such a short period of time? The answer is that many on the left have sold out the people to corporate interests.

- It's not as if the RWingers haven't been upfront about their intentions. They've told us for decades of their desire to bring about a Corporate State and Theocracy while killing off 'liberal social programs'.

- Many of the more 'conservative' Democrats still believe these claims to be outrageous or call them 'conspiracy theories'...even as one social program after another falls to ruin or neglect and our country turns into a military state.

- It's time to wake and once again become the party of the people. The people are the very reason for our existence. Our party has betrayed their trust but it's not too late to redeem ourselves. We must oppose the Bush* regime at every turn...even if it means walking out and shutting down both the house and senate. We must show the people that Bush* and his Republican cronies are NOT above the law and demand hearings, investigations and possibly impeachment.

- If we don't act now...expect things to get much worse and Bush* to serve another four years. We're all the stands between the people and tyranny. It's up to us to protect and defend the Constitution in their name.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. Q....these are fucked up times....what will it take to wake us up?

<scrathching & shaking head in disbelief>

[Q]

18. It 'looks' like it will take another four years of Bush*...

...or a whole lot of Democrats finally getting angry and doing something about this march towards totalitarianism.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[PVnRT]

3. Speaking of useless screeds

Here's sangh0 with yet another one himself.

Thou shalt not criticize the Democratic party - who was it who said that? Rush, wasn't it?

[sangh0]

4. I noticed

you couldn't defend anything Q wrote, or refute anything I wrote.

[Q]

8. You offer nothing to 'refute'...

...even as you ignore what's going on in this country.

- Instead of attacking me...try something different for a change: defend your own position.

- How can you deny the horrible things happening RIGHT now? Do you really think the Democratic party has done all it could to oppose the Bush* junta?

- I have many questions for the Party and demand answers. It's not enough just to oppose Bush* and his GOP cronies. We must demand that our representatives actually represent the best interests of the people.

[sangh0]

28. You can't refute that you posts are useless?

Instead of attacking me...try something different for a change: defend your own position.

I've got a better idea - Instead of whining, why don't you go to Camp Wellstone? You might learn something.

I have many questions for the Party and demand answers. It's not enough just to oppose Bush* and his GOP cronies. We must demand that our representatives actually represent the best interests of the people.

And how is that going? When do you expect the Democratic Party will give in to your demands?

[PVnRT]

11. What is there to refute

You never bring an argument into the discussion, merely whine about people "bashing Democrats." If you have an argument, bring it. If not, quit acting hurt when people respond with the same one-liners that you yourself use all the time.

[sangh0]

29. That Q offers nothing useful

and that his initial post is nothing more than whining.

If not, quit acting hurt when people respond with the same one-liners that you yourself use all the time.

Hurt? Boy, did you read that wrong.

[PVnRT]

42. "Nothing more than whining"

So criticism of the Democratic party is now whining? That's a new one.

Do you agree with everything the Democratic party does?

[sangh0]

59. Useless criticism is whining

Useful criticism is not. And no, I do not agree with everything the Dems do.

[Iverson]

66. constructive criticism is essential

If, for example, a problem recurs and it is behaviorally based, then it is simply reasonable to point out that consistent behavior will give consistent results.

Accomodating Republicans will result in something bad. This has been demonstrated. While clearly Democrats will resist Republicans some of the time, the tendency toward bipartisanship or accomodation does not improve things through reuse, like eating poison only a third of the time.

Since the self-destructive behavior has not changed, pointing out the error cannot be "whining." I generally find the use of that term to be a rhetorical effort to marginalize an opponent, by the way, rather than a sincere effort to engage a point.

[sangh0]

68. Exactly!!!

If, for example, a problem recurs and it is behaviorally based, then it is simply reasonable to point out that consistent behavior will give consistent results.

That's exactly what I've been trying to point out to Q. He regularly posts the same screed, achieves nothing, and then goes on to repeat the same, useless, screed.

Since the self-destructive behavior has not changed, pointing out the error cannot be "whining."

I disagree. If the pointing out is done over and over to no effect, then it IS whining. It's certainly not action. Action has consequences. Q's rants have none.

[Iverson]

71. You got half of it.

Unfortunately, the lesson that you seem to want to convey is that Q should be silent. The lesson that Q wants to convey is that the Democratic Party should stop accomodating the Ruthless Party. For this, you accuse him of hating all things Dem.

You should see how both behaviors have not worked, and particularly the cause-effect relationship between those sets of behaviors. Your critique only makes sense if you begin with Q, but it does not if you begin with accomdating neofascists.

[sangh0]

72. No, you got half of it

Unfortunately, the lesson that you seem to want to convey is that Q should be silent.

No, I want Q to be effective.

Your critique only makes sense if you begin with Q, but it does not if you begin with accomdating neofascists.

My critique IS directed at Q, and not at the neofascists or those who accomodate them so I'm not sure why you think it's inapplicability to them is a weakness. It's not meant to apply to them.

[Iverson]

83. you haven't understood me

to recap:
(me)
Your critique only makes sense if you begin with Q, but it does not if you begin with accomdating neofascists.

(you)
My critique IS directed at Q, and not at the neofascists or those who accomodate them so I'm not sure why you think it's inapplicability to them is a weakness. It's not meant to apply to them.

new stuff:
Yes, yes, your critique is directed at Q. Everyone sees this. Now recall my comments about cause-effect. You agreed that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is not logical. I am paraphrasing here.

Likewise, Q is making the identical critique of Dems accomodating neofascists. You can see one. Now see the other.

Playing dead for the Republicans is a bad idea. Unfortunately, partisanship prevents a certain percentage of people from seeing the merits or faults of an idea. Q's strategy may not be as effective as you'd prefer, but at least his sentiments against caving in to the neofascists are correct. A call to wake up is constructive, perhaps not perfectly so, but still constructive.

Perhaps you have better ideas, but telling Q to stop it is not constructive in and of itself. Accusing him of hating all things Dem is false and also not constructive. Laboring not to understand my gentle reminders is ... well, you get the idea.

We are trying to pull in the same direction, aren't we?

[sangh0]

97. OK, now I understand you

Playing dead for the Republicans is a bad idea. Unfortunately, partisanship prevents a certain percentage of people from seeing the merits or faults of an idea. Q's strategy may not be as effective as you'd prefer, ...

It's not that Q's strategy is not as effective as I'd prefer. It's that Q's strategy damages the cause that both he and I (and you) support; The defeat of Bush*.

...but at least his sentiments against caving in to the neofascists are correct. A call to wake up is constructive, perhaps not perfectly so, but still constructive.

Facts are NOT constructive, in and of themselves. It's what you do with them that determines if they are constructive or destructive. Our knowledge of radiation allows us to build nuclear weapons (destructive) and/or destroy cancers (constructive). Q uses that fact in a destructive manner, IMO.

Perhaps you have better ideas, but telling Q to stop it is not constructive in and of itself. Accusing him of hating all things Dem is false and also not constructive. Laboring not to understand my gentle reminders is ... well, you get the idea.

I disagree. If I were trying to change Q's mind, then my actions here would be an exercise in futility. However, that is not my intentions here. My intention is to counter the harm Q's inaccuracies repeats, and the futility of his "strategy". I do NOT argue with points I think Q has gotten right, which is why I never say that Q is wrong when he says some Dems do not fight Bush* hard enough, though I'm not surprised you haven't mentioned that. Acknowledging this would make it difficult for you to continue to claim that I want to silence Q.

We are trying to pull in the same direction, aren't we?

No, some people are pulling in the wrong direction and they think they're pulling in the right direction. It would be more accurate to say "We want the same things, but we disagree on how to get those things done"

Q thinks we should somehow get each and every Dem to vote the way Q wants them to vote on EVERY vote. He says we can do this by "Telling the truth". Do you honestly think the answer to our problems is to simply "TEll the truth" or do you think it will take more than that?

[Iverson]

100. fine, sort of

I appreciate your clarification. Unfortunately, you have gone overboard. One way is by erasing the difference between simple statement of fact and advocating a policy. Another way is this ...

"I do NOT argue with points I think Q has gotten right, which is why I never say that Q is wrong when he says some Dems do not fight Bush* hard enough, though I'm not surprised you haven't mentioned that. Acknowledging this would make it difficult for you to continue to claim that I want to silence Q."

I am dealing with what's here in this thread, including one of your claims that Q hates all things Dem. You are correct that I have not gone out of my way to locate other instances in which you did not disagree with Q. There are several billion other things I left out too. I remind you that I am not your personal enemy.

[sangh0]

101. Fine, sort of

I don't expect you to agree with me. I'm satisfied that you have a better understanding. And the next time you want to accuse me of wanting to silence anybody, you might want to remember that I am not your personal enemy either, and accusing me of wanting things I don't want seems similar to my accusing Q of hating all things Dem.

You expect perfection from me (and I'm flattered) but you don't expect that from Q or yourself.

[Iverson]

104. I propose a deal.

Considering your response, I withdraw the assertion that you want to silence Q. I hope you will respond in kind.

[sangh0]

107. And I will try to

avoid characterizing Q's intent and focus on the implication of his posts.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

6. I suggest effective action

not useless whining, such as:

Your kneejerk responses to my threads are no longer humorous. Our country is in danger and all you can do is make silly claims about me attacking Dems.

Silly? It's true.

I'm calling for the Democratic party to wake up and realize that we're being bullied and intimidated into not strongly opposing what looks more and more like fascism.

And how is it working so far? Has the Democratic Party responded to your demands?

This thread is a direct attack upon the Bush* regime. I'm asking you and others to join me in saying NO MORE. Can you do it? Can you put your pettiness aside long enough to join in an effort to oppose those trying to destroy our country?

Is that the plan? Saying "No more"?

Forgive me for thinking that is a useless course of action.

[sangh0]

7. Maybe you could try this Q

http://www.wellstone.org/camp/index.aspx

[Q]

9. Your posts...

...are becoming more and more incomprehensible. You point out that certain Dems are opposing the Bushies...but turn a blind eye towards the rest of the party as they submit to one humilation after another. One defeat after another.

- The far-right wingers have gotten nearly everything they've every wanted...with the exception of a few judges out of hundreds.

- You want accountability from the Bush* regime? Then demand the same from the Democratic party.

[sangh0]

27. Typical

Q ignores a suggestion that could lead to real action and real change, in favor of his useless venting.

You want accountability from the Bush* regime? Then demand the same from the Democratic party

So how's that effort going? Are they accountable yet?

[Cocoa]

17. or this...

http://www.aclu.org

Unless of course, you believe the "patriots" at DU that tell us that the ACLU has sold out the the voting machine companies.

[sangh0]

30. How about it Q?

There are lots of things to be done. When will you join the effort?

[Q]

81. "Join" the effort?

- The implication is that you're 'doing something' and I'm not. But you haven't yet described what it is YOU'RE doing that's so great. Are you suggesting that blind support for politicians is the answer?

- You're very quick to judge...but yet offer little to the discussion.

[sangh0]

98. Why won't you help the ACLU?

They are on our side.

[Cocoa]

105. or even mention them?

funny that the alarmists on the country's unstoppable slide into fascism rarely if ever mention the ACLU. A whole group of the BBV people even accused them of being "corrupt" when they opposed them on something or other, and no one challenged that accusation.

The thesis is that if you don't share they hyped up apocalyptic view of things, then you have your head in the sand. With the ACLU, it's hard to make that case. They're obviously aware of the dangers we face, they report on these all the time. But they're also realistic about the work required that can prevent the worst. Less fun than the science fiction view of things, unfortunately.

[Scott Lee]

37. You would rather go merrily along with the statist and *enablers

as usual?

Is THAT a good course of action, noting it's stunning election successes over the past few years?

[sangh0]

40. NO, I don't like Dean the Bush* enabler

remember?

[PVnRT]

43. Dean the Bush enabler?

Exactly how does that work? I don't recall Dean being in Congress since Bush was elected, nor throwing his support behind Bush in 2000...how did he "enable" Bush again? Or are you just throwing out yet another meaningless Kerry talking point with nothing to back it up?

[sangh0]

52. Dean enables Bush*

by attacking Dems, which saves Rove time.

[Q]

78. Candidates shouldn't attack other candidates...

...but to say they're 'helping' Rove is hyperbole. What helps Rove are Democrats unwilling to take Bush* to task and make him accountable. THAT'S the kind of Democrat Rove loves the most.

[Scott Lee]

86. By the same token, YOU enable Bush* by attacking Dean.

Today's lesson: Logic.

[sangh0]

99. I don't attack the Democratic Party

Dean does.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

53. Oh Susanna!

:-)

[Q]

85. I'm not expecting the 'Democratic party' to respond to my demands...

...but I would expect them to respond to the demands of their constituents if enough of them made the effort.

- DU is a place to express thoughts and opinions. I might add that I've posted three 'anti-Bush*' threads in the last week...and you responded to none of them. I've posted several 'postive' threads about Byrd and other Dems trying to expose Bush* lies and deceptions. You must not have seen them.

- It's getting to the point where you're looking more like a stalker of my threads than a thoughful participant. You say you're more 'knowledgeable'...yet you act as if you're reserving that knowledge for a more appropriate time...because you're sure not displaying it here.

[Cocoa]

10. quite Bush*y indeed

it's got that apocalyptic thing going on, whipping up fears.

Seen that RNC ad yet? It highlights the scary words in red.

[Q]

14. That GOP political ad is just a first volley...

...in what will be the most destructive presidential campaign in American history.

- Hillary was right when she said this is a battle of ideologies. The Right won't be satisfied with just 'winning' the 2004 election...they're out to destroy the Democratic party and everything we've worked over decades to accomplish.

- They want medicare GONE. They want social security GONE. Environmental protections GONE. They intend to replace all these programs and more with private companies and deregulation that ignore the will of the people.

- Encouraging the Democratic party to fight back is one of the only options left.

[Cocoa]

20. no doy

as we used to say...

You've swung insanely from total hyperbole to total obviousness, and you're citing a member of the hated DLC.

[sangh0]

31. Q makes no sense

He cites Clinton, a DLCer who supports the invasion of Iraq, as one who stands up to Bush*, and Q claims to encourage Dems to fight back, but I've never seen Q make a complimentary post in the threads about Dems fighting back.

Yesterday, the Dems defeated Bush*'s energy plan, which was a MAJOR goal of theirs. Q is silent.

[Q]

44. You can't 'cite' someone and disagree with them...

...at the same time? Your purist mentality is insulting.

- And the Dems didn't 'defeat' the energy bill...it's been put on hold

- I hope you're not arrogant enough to blame those like me if Bush* stays in office after 2004, That's exactly what you're asking for when you continue to make excuses for the party instead of encouraging them to fight.

[sangh0]

45. You can't cite them for what they don't do

and Clinton is NOT a fighter of all things Bush*. She voted for IWR< and STILL supports the invasion.

And the Dems didn't 'defeat' the energy bill...it's been put on hold

It's been defeated. It's not being passed. That was the goal, and the Dems achieved that goal.

I hope you're not arrogant enough to blame those like me if Bush* stays in office after 2004, That's exactly what you're asking for when you continue to make excuses for the party instead of encouraging them to fight.

Blame you? Heaven forbid!!! We all know you're blameless. It's always someone else's fault.

[Forkboy]

46. Are you blameless also?

[Forkboy]

90. Yes...no?

?

[Q]

50. No...the RWingers will bring back the energy bill...

...at the first of the year...after they browbeat a few more Dems or GOPers into voting for it. If they 'achieved' anything...it was a delay and nothing else.

- "It's always someone else's fault". This use to be the mantra of the Republican party. Have you now adopted it for your own use?

- What exactly is your objection to the Democratic party organizing and fighting Bush* together as one force...as one voice? It sounds as if you're either on Bush's* side or afraid of him.

[sangh0]

54. NOw Q's the Great Karnack!!

Tell us more about the future, O Great Seer!

"It's always someone else's fault". This use to be the mantra of the Republican party. Have you now adopted it for your own use?

That's your job. Go blame the Dems.

What exactly is your objection to the Democratic party organizing and fighting Bush* together as one force...as one voice? It sounds as if you're either on Bush's* side or afraid of him.

It sounds like you want the Dems to be more Republican.

[Cocoa]

51. you're ENABLING Hillary Clinton!!!!!!

take off your pink tutu, Q!

Hillary gave Bush a STANDING OVATION for his Iraq war, I saw her standing there next to Joe Lieberman, they were the first Dems to stand up.

If you mention Hillary Clinton, you MUST do it only to denunciate her, otherwise you're no better than THEM.

[sangh0]

55. Q doesn't care about the facts

He will say anything in order to express his hatred of all things Dem

[Iverson]

67. That is ridiculous.

A sweeping attack of Q's motives is unworthy.

[sangh0]

69. Huh?

I said nothing about Q's motives. I spoke of Q's lack of commitment to the truth.

And I'm particularly surprised at how you characterize Q's remarks as "constructive criticism" (without identifying anything constructive about them) while mine are a "sweeping attack"

[Iverson]

70. now now

You have projected into Q an a priori hatred of all things Dem and a lack of commitment to fact. Since that is your underlying premise, you feel no need to back it up.

You should understand that those beliefs are just that: beliefs. They are not naturalistic facts. They are also transparent.

Take it as friendly advice, or ignore it.

[sangh0]

102. You want back up?

Q not only refuses to celebrate the Dems defeat of the Repukes energy bill, he also denies that it's a victory at all, thereby demonstrating his lack of commitment to fact (and it is a fact that it was the Dems who defeated it) and his hatred that the Dems did something good.

The Dems beat the Repukes. Q should get over that!

[Q]

106. Now you're trying to tell me what I must 'celebrate'?

- The energy bill passed in the House. The Dems and a few GOPers in the Senate were able to 'block' the bill on an issue concerning a gasoline additive. Right now it's in limbo. But Frist and other GOP leaders have already promised that they'll bring up this same bill (sans a couple of objectable issues) at the first of the year. The Bill is not dead...it's on vacation.

- Republicans are basking in the glory of their 'win' on the medicare bill. It's to their political benefit not to fight the energy bill right now...knowing it would just deflect from their medicare victory. They want Bush* to be able to use the medicare issue in his campaign without being distracted with questions about the energy bill.

- If this is your idea of 'victory'...I'd hate to see what you call defeat.

[Malva Zebrina]

60. and they want Jesus to be president

do not forget the theocracy wannabees. They are powerful also in this adnministration what with Armageddon and the long awaited "rapture" that drives them all to want to kill and keep killing--because after all the god who is said to want this and who is said to play a very important part in all of this killing, actually is so impotent that he NEEDS their help.

[Q]

94. Indeed...we have an Attorney General who is a fruitcake...

...and religious zealot who holds prayer meetings each morning on government property. He's guided by fundamentalism and not the Constitution and rule of law. He has demanded (and received) laws that are an affront to the Bill of Rights and due process.

- We have a 'president*' who says that God wanted him to run for president and generals who agree with him. They are not 'powerful' within this administration...they ARE the administration.

[asjr]

13. screed

"another useless screed" - Q says the same things that I feel. We are here at DU in order to project our feelings and one person's thoughts are no better than any other's. Q states what is truth. You do not have to denigrate what someone else says. We can differ but that is no reason to be rude. We must oppose the Bush regime. They are our enemy--not each other.

[Q]

16. Thanks...exactly my point...

...we HAVE TO unite the entire Left against the Bushies. We can no longer afford to leave it up to a few Democrats to fight the good fight for us. We must join with them...encourage them to stop acting like victims unable to fight back.

- I want Democrats to win in 2004. I can't see this happening until we realize that we must stop enabling the criminals in the WH.

[sangh0]

33. Your point is incoherent

we HAVE TO unite the entire Left against the Bushies

And you do that by attacking other liberals. Way to go, Q!

We can no longer afford to leave it up to a few Democrats to fight the good fight for us.

And your solution is to blame the Democrats. If you think people shouldn't look to Dems to fight with us, then why do you constantly complain about how the Dems won't fight with us?

We must join with them

By attacking them?

encourage them to stop acting like victims unable to fight back

"You Dems act like victims" - Gee, that's some encouragement! I'm guessing/hoping you don't work with children.

I want Democrats to win in 2004.

And you're working towards that goal by tearing them down. Nice job!

I can't see this happening until we realize that we must stop enabling the criminals in the WH.

Ahhh, I see. The Dems "enable crime", and so you want to see the Dems win.....why?

[sangh0]

32. That is ridiculously self-indulgent

We are here at DU in order to project our feelings and one person's thoughts are no better than any other's.

You might want to do a little more research on how and why DU was started. (Hint: It had nothing to do with projecting your feelings)

[Q]

47. You're either very young...

...or haven't been paying attention to the political trends over the last three decades. You're acting like this is simply another 'cycle' in American politics that will 'go away' once we elect a Democrat. Did you learn nothing from the Clinton years?

- I've been at DU since (nearly) the beginning. We came here in protest at Bush* having TAKEN the election from us. But since then many Dems have told us to 'move on' and look to the future even if it meant not learning from the past.

- You still seem to think you're fighting Republicans instead of the fanatics that took over the party in the 80s and 90s. Fanatics and zealots can't be fought with politics as usual. Isn't that glaringly obvious by now?

[sangh0]

56. I'm older and more knowledgeable than you Q

I know enough to not cite Clinton as someone who has stood up to Bush*

I've been at DU since (nearly) the beginning. We came here in protest at Bush* having TAKEN the election from us. But since then many Dems have told us to 'move on' and look to the future even if it meant not learning from the past.

Poor baby. Maybe if you keep complaining, someone will come along and burp you.

You still seem to think you're fighting Republicans instead of the fanatics that took over the party in the 80s and 90s.

You still seem to think you're not fighting Dems. I suggest you'd do us all a favor if you fought Bush* instead.

Fanatics and zealots can't be fought with politics as usual. Isn't that glaringly obvious by now?

Yes, you've made that obvious.

[Q]

84. How can you say that you're 'older' if you don't know my age?

- And saying you're more 'knowledgeable' is merely a matter of conceit. Sometimes people love themselves more than the truth.

- And once again you misquote me. I didn't cite Clinton as someone fighting Bush*. I agreed with her statement that the Bushies are fighting a war of ideologies.

- I'm too old to be 'burped'. But I'm not to old to recognize a rude person when I see one. Your bitterness is overwhelming your common sense.

- You seem to equate making politicians accountable for their actions with 'fighting Democrats'. This suggests that Democrats are perfect and that only Republicans and Bush should be held accountable.

- Perhaps you shouldn't post to my threads? They seem to disturb you and cause unreasonable anger.

[Gloria]

12. So, it boiled down to 9 Dems and Jeffords, I presume...

54/44.

Jeffords, the man who "left the GOP" on principle.....votes with them on this???

And those Dems....and Daschle..

Blind at best, craven at worst, and I tend to go with craven.

My God, I think I'm going to do something I'll regret one of these days. How many times can you get yourself slapped down and keep picking yourself up to fight more, when people who should be fighting for you DON'T.

[Q]

15. This is about much more than the Medicare vote...

...Those Dems who voted for the Iraq invasion and occupation must now declare in no uncertain terms that they were duped. They should demand investigations and hold hearings on how Bush* LIED us into war. This isn't just bad foreign policy...this is treason.

- How many will join me in saying we're tired of being victims?

[NoKingGeorge]

19. Constructive action

I keep looking for actions I can take to support my Country against these traitors. Q is eloquent but as with so many posts here he/she offers no concrete actions.(what? yell 'no more' out the window? been there done that). A lot of whinig posts but not ACTIONS. Doesn't anyone here have a historical or political reference of effective actions to take?

[Q]

21. The 'action' I recommend is being ignored...

- But I'm glad you asked.

- You were exactly right in calling them 'traitors'. And I'm not talking about the Democrats who are having a difficult time opposing the Bush* mafia.

- Democrats have been shocked, intimidated and bullied into submission. There are literally hundreds of Democrats in DC willing to FIGHT the Bushies...but there's little or no leadership to lead them in the fight.

- Our first 'action' must be to tell the whole truth to the American people. The truth about the phony 'war on terrorism'. The truth about the Bushies 'allowing' the terrorists to attack us on 9-11 and then using it to their political advantage. The truth about the plans to attack Iraq and other countries before the Bushies took office.

- Our party made a grave mistake when they allowed an election to be stolen in broad daylight. This only embolden the Bushies to take even more. We have to stop them in their tracks...even if it means SHUTTING DOWN our government until we can restore some semblence of a representative government.

[YNGW]

24. comment

I wish the Democratic candidate would run on the platform of telling the truth about Bush & Co. allowing the terrorists to attack us on 9-11 and the truth about the plans to attack Iraq and other countries being planned before Bush & Co. took office. I would like to see how the American people would react to such a candidacy.

:thumbsup:

dai

[sangh0]

35. Some action

Our first 'action' must be to tell the whole truth to the American people.

"Our 'first'" action?

It's the only one you ever talk about.

So how it working? Have you been telling the whole truth? Has it defeated Bush* yet?

even if it means SHUTTING DOWN our government

And do you have a reasonable proposal for how to do that, or are you just blowing hot air again?

[Q]

80. I keep 'talking about it'...

...because we haven't taken that first step as of yet.

- But we will...eventually. My guess is that we won't take this step until AFTER the next election.

- How do we shut down the government? Our representatives could stage a walk-out...refuse to participate with Republicans who attempt to shut them out of the legislative process.

[sangh0]

34. Yes.

Doesn't anyone here have a historical or political reference of effective actions to take?

Read about MLK and Gandhi as well as other non-violent movements. PM me if you'd like some recommendations

[Scott Lee]

38. MLK and Gandhi? Oh man.....

I guess you haven't seen the photos from the Miami protest?

You know, there are times and places in history where certain tactics can work...and where they cannot work. This is one of those times that we need to explore other action than "hit me again, fascists, and this time put some stank on it!"

[sangh0]

41. Thanks for the laugh

Have you ever seen pictures of the marches MLK and Gandhi led?

How about the ones Otpor led against Milosovic? You remember Milosovic, don't you?

Who do you think is more brutal, the Miami PD or Milosovic?

[Scott Lee]

49. This isn't 1944, or 1964. Update your calendar.

The GOP fascist swing is beyond anything we've dealt with before. They have shown that they are more than willing to level blows to your head and bullets to your body in order to put you down. And you want to lock arms and ward them away with "Kumbayah" or "We shall overcome"?

I seriously suggest you pour yourself a nice hot cup of reality and drink it in...slowly....savoring every horrible, true minute.

[sangh0]

57. Otpor vs Milosevic was the 1990's

and you didn't answer the question:

Who's more brutal, the Miami PD or Milosevic?

They have shown that they are more than willing to level blows to your head and bullets to your body in order to put you down

And Bull Connor was not willing to do the same?

And you want to lock arms and ward them away with "Kumbayah" or "We shall overcome"?

Is that how you think the Civil Right Movement won? Kumbayah?

[Scott Lee]

87. If you think Satyagraha will actually overcome these fascists...

I have some bloody clothing from Miami that you can start washing! You up for it?

[sangh0]

103. Are you afraid to answer my question?

Satyagraha has overcome fascists before. That's why you won't answer my question. You know the answer shows that satyagraha can defeat fascists.

[GreenArrow]

63. instead of Kumbayah and we Shall Overcome

protestors should be singing "God Bless America," and reciting the pledge of Allegiance. Loudly.

[Q]

76. Yet...I can't blame people for not fully accepting what we're up against

...simply because our country has never experienced fascism before. Many think there are 'Constitutional protections' in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening. What they don't seem to realize is that those protections only work if the Constitution is recognized.

- Repubicans give lip service to the Constitution. Nothing more.

[GreenArrow]

62. "that they were duped."

the problem is that they WEREN'T duped.

[Q]

73. I'm trying to give the Dems who voted for BUSH'S* WAR an out...

...and a way to redeem themselves for voting for an illegal invasion.

- I can understand people making a mistake. What I don't understand is that some politicos continue to insist they didn't make an err in judgment even when it's obvious to everyone else. That's false pride or outright denial.

[Q]

74. I'm trying to give the Dems who voted for BUSH'S* WAR an out...

...and a way to redeem themselves for voting for an illegal invasion.

- I can understand people making a mistake. What I don't understand is that some politicos continue to insist they didn't make an err in judgment even when it's obvious to everyone else. That's false pride or outright denial.

[GreenArrow]

77. how much time will you give them?

Maybe I'm just more cynical than you...I have little doubt that most if not all of them knew Bush was full of crap but believed taking out Sadaam was the right thing to do. They suffer from Madeline Albright syndrome--thousands upon thousands of deaths are a high price to pay, but they believe it was worth it.

[Q]

82. Well...if they haven't admitted to their mistake by now...

...there's a good chance they never will. It's easier to hide behind Bush's* power than to oppose it.

-

[Tellurian]

92. Yes, Yes, and Yes!

Q, I want you to know I haven't been here very much over the last few days because I think there is a concerted effort on these message boards to silence dissent with anyone enabling organization of unified thinking to thwart the total and complete takeover of the government by the passage of the Pats Act part II-

Over the last several days, I have been in similar arguments on the several message boards I frequent most with the attacker trying to discredit everything I say, backed up by another troll, taking turns in tandem posting obsequious, derisive remarks as to my credibility and intent.

I think their intent or mission is to discourage anyone not falling into line to just give up and proceed to walk in lockstep to the RW mantra-

The "Resistence IS Futile" meme-

I really think it's that simple!

[Q]

93. Good morning!

Reply:

"Q, I want you to know I haven't been here very much over the last few days because I think there is a concerted effort on these message boards to silence dissent with anyone enabling organization of unified thinking to thwart the total and complete takeover of the government by the passage of the Pats Act part II-"

- It does make one wonder about the lack of opposition by some so-called loyal Democrats to the most anti-Democratic law and legislation in our history. Perhaps they've grown too afraid to think for themselves?

"Over the last several days, I have been in similar arguments on the several message boards I frequent most with the attacker trying to discredit everything I say, backed up by another troll, taking turns in tandem posting obsequious, derisive remarks as to my credibility and intent. I think their intent or mission is to discourage anyone not falling into line to just give up and proceed to walk in lockstep to the RW mantra-"

- I won't judge their motivation or intent...but it is suspicious that it's always the same two or three people who seem 'incensed' that Democrats are encouraging their leadership to fight. And yes...they do seem to bring up derisive remarks and make accusations that have little or nothing to do with the premise of the thread. It does seem as if they want people to fall into line and just accept the 'inevitability' of it all.

"The "Resistance IS Futile" meme-"

- Well... resistance is never futile when you can understand the difference between right and wrong and act using values and principles as a guideline. What the Bush* administration has done to this country and the world is plain wrong (and illegal) and they should be prosecuted if we are to even pretend that equal justice under the law still exists.

[Tellurian]

95. Morning, Q...

"What the Bush* administration has done to this country and the world is plain wrong (and illegal) and they should be prosecuted if we are to even pretend that equal justice under the law still exists."

Of course- meanwhile, we must take time out for family and loved ones. I'm taking off early today, looking forward to spending quality time doing all those wonderful mundane things we do on Thanks Giving...football, overeat, collapsing on the couch, Christmas shop the next day. Savoring every moment we have left of all we've taken for granted for so long...Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Happy ThanksGiving to All and you an yours-

see you soon..


Tellurian-

[Q]

96. Taking time for loved ones...

...is something I try to do each and every day. This is going to be a great Thanksgiving and I'm looking forward to spending even more time with family this Christmas and New Year.

- Take care and don't let the fascists get you down.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. 42 republicans voted for this bill...WTF? this should have been a slamdunk

for dems!

[teryang]

91. Your right except that some votes are bought

...and paid for. Even if some of these guys can live without PAC money originating with HMOs and pharmaceutical giants, I'm sure their families and trusts hold scads of health care stocks. What are they supposed to do, attack their own principal?

This was a major test of the political health of big pharma. If they had lost this move, the handwriting would have been on the wall for them. It was either gouge the elderly and a phased in destruction of medicare, or price controls.

[ShaneGR]

23. bullet point writing

-snore

-snore

-snore

-snore

-Nader 2004

[PVnRT]

25. Where did he say Nader 2004 again?

I must have missed that. Could you maybe include a quote and a citation? Thanks in advance for your help.

[sangh0]

58. How could you miss it? It's in every Q post.

Like "h" in "ghost", the "Nader" is silent, but it's there.

[ulysses]

65. lame.

Is putting words in people's mouths the best you can do? You can't square the idea that someone could criticize actions of Democrats and at the same time not support Nader with your little worldview, so you make stuff up? Sad.

[Scott Lee]

88. sangh0 excels in fabricating a reality at which to be appalled

And funny...that's exactly what the rightwingers love to do as well.

Connection?

[Q]

75. The 'Nader is silent but it's there'?

- I've never supported or voted for Nader. Yet you claim to 'see' him in my posts?

- A cynic would call that an attempt to invent a negative in order to smear someone.

- But I can't blame you for your state of denial. It took me a very long time to realize that certain 'factions' within the party were selling us out.

- So why do I stick around? I still believe the Democratic party is our only hope in a seriously f**ked up two party system. There is hope...if we find a way to change the current leadership and bring the 'old school' Democrats out of the dustbin and put them in charge.

[GreenArrow]

64. clear and easy to read

.

[CTLawGuy]

26. the best action you can take...

work and vote for the guy who entered the scene by saying "What I want to know is why so many Democrats are supporting the Presidents unilateral invasion of Iraq?"
and "we'll never beat Bush by being Bush-lite", and "I'll make you proud to be Democrats again; I'll give people a reason to vote again"

Howard Dean '04

[Q]

79. We must do more than work for the candidates...

...Why? Because our entire system of government is broken. A Democratic president would find himself in the same situation as Clinton: unable to govern and harassed with phony hearings and investigations.

- The system can't be repaired unless and until we recognize it's broken.

[Scott Lee]

89. We must DENOUNCE statist candidates.

And you know who they are.

[CWebster]

36. "Corporate State and Theocracy"

"The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

'The results in the '90s spoke for themselves,' Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. 'Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again.'

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, 'Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch.'"





http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

A complete coup of the Left...surely they would promote an effective candidate with all the most agreeable rhetoric...mission accomplished.

[FlaGranny]

39. There is a certain percentage of people

who always take the side of the perceived most powerful. They want to be positioned correctly to get all they can out of their "loyalty." They have little conscience and big ambitions. And they don't care whether their actions are moral, or not. Their desired ends are all that matter. The are "extreme right-wingers."

Constast with somebody like me: If I'm watching a football game in which two teams that mean nothing to me are playing. Who do I root for? The underdog, of course. I guess that's what makes me a flaming liberal. :-)

[Malva Zebrina]

61. there are some people who get their information from others

they navigate their lives by the input they receive from others. They cannot subsist without these others.

There are others who get their information from their inner souls.