Scooter24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 09:41 PM
Original message |
We should all be very carefull. |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 09:42 PM by Scooter24
We all need to be very careful not to let anyone frame the Democratic party as "weak" on terror based off the lies exploited in tonight's ABC movie.
Yes, the movie was awful. Yes, there are lies. But I think we need to spend the next several weeks after 9/11 focusing on the Bush and GOP scenario and not what did or did not happen during Clinton's presidency.
We as a party need to say focused and need to hit back harder than ever.
|
C_U_L8R
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. let them call us weak on terror |
|
and they may get a punch in the nose.
yellowstain republicans are the most worst sort.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-11-06 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. If anyone says that to me |
|
I'm going to respond by telling them: "YOU'RE the one who is eager to cede our rights and civil liberties for the promise of protection, not me! Who are YOU calling weak, chickenshit?"
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-11-06 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. just don't use the word "cede" -- they won't understand it. |
|
it would be better to say "eager to give up our rights and freedoms" (civil liberties is too vague a term for them)
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-11-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
They'd think 'seed' and that I had some good pot or something. ;)
|
Olney Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Yes, we have to stay focused. |
|
It was interesting that they did show that certain things DID happen during Clinton's administration: The WTC truck bombers were caught and convicted, training camps in Afghanistan were bombed, and the LAX bombing at the millenium was prevented.
|
Danascot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. You'd almost think that |
|
Clinton did a better job of foiling terror than the next pResident.
|
Olney Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
lala_rawraw
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
5. but these are fake positions, both of them... |
|
weak vs. strong... a real position would be honesty vs. lie, arrogant vs. mindful... the war on terror is what the Republicans gave us to sell elections and the dems need to give it back ... so i would rather we simply respond every single time they mention "dems weak on terror"
If Republicans are so strong on security, then why is it they went into the wrong country, killed thousands of innocent people, while our own country is even less safe?
|
skids
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Hit them proactively, not just when hit.
Hot those corrupt marianas-island-sweatshop child labor forced abortion phony "made in USA" textile label wage destroying pension stealing anti-worker anti-environment warmongering terrormongering lawbreaking system perverting sexual deviant classist bastards for what they are.
|
oasis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-10-06 11:35 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Bush talked tough about "Osama dead or alive". He's the failure. |
|
:puke: Screw anyone who dares to say that Dems are weak or soft on terrorism.
Bush and his boys took their eye off the ball.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 06:37 AM
Response to Original message |