If Hillary Clinton is the corporate candidate, that must mean that Dennis Kucinich is the

[LoZoccolo]

porno candidate

[polichick]

1. Why?

Is Kucinich being supported by the porn industry? I think I might have missed something!

[Clintonista2]

2. larry flynt endorsed him

[polichick]

5. Well, that IS something I missed! nt

[fenriswolf]

10. awsome

isn't larry flynt the outspoken freedom of speech guy? Doesnt he often investigate fraud and sexual indescretions in our government. I am proud to have a freedom of speech advocate and anti corruption promoter on the kucnich trail. Course the whole porn king thing doesnt help kucinich but thats digressing.

[Clintonista2]

12. I like Larry Flynt. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

38. hEY HEY HEY DIDN'T THINK OF THAT.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Larry Flynt held a fundraiser for him.

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2007/11/19/Flynt-gets-behind-Dennis-Kucinich

[polichick]

8. Thanks for the link...

One thing I can say for Larry is he's a great whistleblower when it comes to Republican hypocrisy!

[dflprincess]

25. Better a fundraiser held by Flynt, than one held by Murdoch

n/t

[robinlynne]

36. here! here!

[Xipe Totec]

6. Link here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2311727

[polichick]

11. Interesting cast of characters involved there - thanks! nt

[marmar]

4. Larry Flynt, pornographer or not, advocates free speech....

That elevates him about the vast majority of politicians, IMO.

[endarkenment]

7. Dennis is a strong supporter of first amendment rights.

Is Hillary?

[William769]

13. Is she not?

[endarkenment]

17. Voted for Patriot Act. No.

[William769]

24. And that makes her against the 1st amendment?

[mrfixit]

29. Yes.

[William769]

30. Care to explain?

[endarkenment]

44. I suggest you ask a librarian. nt.

[William769]

46. Thats what I thought.

[endarkenment]

48. Are you that clueless?

Here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17386res20030328.html

On Edit: added excerpt from above links

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."" The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.


Still think there is no 1st amendment issue?

[William769]

51. Apparently you are.

[endarkenment]

52. Here are some more clues:

Seizure of assets - Sec. 806: Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware. Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.

This language is broad enough to authorize the government to seize any assets of any individuals involved in the Vieques Island protests or of any organization supporting the protests of which the person is a member, or from any individuals who were supporting the protesters in any way. Possible supporters of the protesters could include student organizations that sponsored participation in the demonstration, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, the Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network, and religious or community organizations that provided housing or food to the protesters.

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism.

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html

[endarkenment]

53. Cluestick:

How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Allows for Detention of People Engaging in Innocent Associational Activity (10/23/2001)


The final version of the anti-terrorism legislation, the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") permits detention and deportation of non-citizens who provide assistance for lawful activities of a group the government claims is a terrorist organization, even if the group has never been designated as a terrorist organization.

The Secretary of State can designate groups either under existing section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or under a new provision created by section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act. While existing INA section 219 permits designation of foreign groups with various procedural safeguards, Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act adds a new provision to INA section 212(a)(3)(B) that permits designation foreign and domestic groups, without those procedural safeguards. Under this new power, the Secretary of State could designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity a "terrorist organization" - whether it be Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The designation would render the group's non-citizen members inadmissible to the United States, and would make payment of membership dues a deportable offense. Under the bill, people can be deported regardless of whether they knew of the designation and regardless of whether their assistance had anything to do with the group's alleged terrorist activity.

The USA PATRIOT Act also allows for detention and deportation of individuals who provide lawful assistance to groups that are not designated as terrorist organizations. It then requires the immigrant to prove a negative: that he did not know, and should not have known, that his assistance would further terrorist activity. Section 411, amending INA sections 212(a)(3)(B).

The USA PATRIOT Act creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for truly innocent association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations. There would be no notice.

The danger of putting the burden of proof on the immigrant, as the USA PATRIOT Act does, is greatly exacerbated by overbroad terrorism definitions. The USA PATRIOT Act amends the definition of terrorist activity so that it now covers use of a "weapon or other dangerous device . . . to cause substantial damage to property," even if such damage created no danger of injury. INA section 212(a)(3)(B) (ii)(V), as amended by USA PATRIOT Act section 411. Under the definition, groups such as World Trade Organization protestors who engage in minor vandalism, abortion foes who engage in civil disobedience, or protestors at Vieques, Puerto Rico who damage a fence, would be deemed terrorist organizations. Likewise, purely humanitarian assistance to the Northern Alliance, foes of the Taliban and foes of Osama bin Laden, could be assistance to a terrorist organization.

Guilt by association is generally forbidden under the First Amendment and the history of McCarthyism shows the very real dangers of abuse. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) (leaders of NAACP cannot be held liable for violent acts engaged in during course of NAACP-led boycott absent evidence that leaders specifically intended the violence); United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) (federal government cannot deny security clearance for work in national defense facility on basis of membership in Communist Party, absent evidence that individual specifically intended to further the Party's illegal ends); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (members of Communist Party cannot be denied passports absent evidence of specific intent to further Party's illegal ends).

At the very least, if association with a group is to be a deportable offense, the government should notify non-citizens of which groups to avoid. Notice cannot be assumed because of the extraordinary variety of groups that could be labeled terrorist organizations under the definition of terrorism in the bill.

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12482leg20011023.html

[endarkenment]

54. I've got more. let me know when you are clued-up.

How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Expands Law Enforcement "Sneak and Peek" Warrants (10/23/2001)


The final version of the anti-terrorism legislation, the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. This means that the government could enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupant was away, search through her property and take photographs, and in some cases seize physical property and electronic communications, and not tell her until later. This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the government to both obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose property will be searched before conducting the search. The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights. For example, a person with notice might be able to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no authority to be looking in dresser drawers. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that notice is a key Fourth Amendment protection. However, it has not ruled on the constitutionality of sneak and peek searches.

The major rationale for requiring a warrant before conducting a search is to ensure that a neutral and detached third person - usually a magistrate - will review a warrant prior to issuance. The invasion of privacy must be held to a minimum. In a covert search warrant, there are often no limitations on what can or will be searched. Any protections afforded by a warrant are meaningless when the searching officer has complete and unsupervised discretion as to what, when and where to search and the individual owner is not provided notice so cannot assert and protect her rights.

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12481leg20011023.html

[Selatius]

69. You're using biased sources. Of course the ACLU would rather side with the 1st Amendment.

The ACLU is a biased defender of the 1st Amendment. Of course they shouldn't be used! Use uninvolved or neutral sources instead! :sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

72. My mistake.

Still waiting some response from the poster. Not holding breath.

[mrfixit]

68. Key Vote - USA Patriot Act of 2001

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3110&can_id=55463

Official Title of Legislation:

HR 3162: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that grants law enforcement more authority to search homes, tap phone lines, and track internet use of those suspected of terrorism for four years.

NY Jr Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton Democrat
Y

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3110


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Key phrase: "abridging the freedom of speech"

[wildbilln864]

9. Kucinich rocks!

Kucinich/Edwards '08! :patriot:

[neutron]

19. Kucinich/Gore

Edwards can take a hike.
I don't like his cut throat campaign strategy.

[IndianaJones]

14. porn will be seen as a positive by the liberal/progressive crowd. nt.

[wyldwolf]

15. I see it positively to a certain point.

[riqster]

16. I'm OK with that.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, ya know.

[Stop Cornyn]

18. Kucinich is the liberal candidate (whips and chains cost extra)

[SaveElmer]

20. Flynt is scum...

He has a history of glorifying misogyny and violence against women...

Not somebody Democrats should be aligning themselves with...

[polichick]

23. I do think that's a problem...

The porn industry is degrading to women ~ and it makes me sick to see so many young women on YouTube exploiting themselves. It's as if to them equality means they'll degrade themselves from now on!

[fenriswolf]

26. wait, larry flynt has your tube videos?

up up and awayyyyyyyyyy

[polichick]

27. Sure, why not...

It must be a real turn-on to watch sad misguided young girls exploiting themselves.

[fenriswolf]

31. not really , happily married and sexed up

so no real need for porn.

just wanted to say people are misguided, used and abused all the time. But i will tell you one thing, i bet you each and every one of the girls that posed for hustler did so voluntarily, each and every one of those girls recieved a paycheck for modeling. I do not know how many of the girls who pose like what they do but I am sure not all of them are misguided. Just like all pornstars (who have sex not just pose for money) are not misguided and alot of them love what they do. I am not inatly aware of hustler's hiring practice either with their models, are you?

[polichick]

35. I was really talking about the young girls on YouTube being sad and misguided...

But I would also say that most women ~ and men ~ involved with the porn industry are pretty troubled.

[fenriswolf]

39. really? how many of them do you know?

not attacking just playing devils advocate.

[polichick]

42. Surely you don't believe that people who are...

...emotionally stable, financially well-supported, and blessed with healthy self-esteem put themselves in such situations.

There have been plenty of documentaries covering the kids who get sucked into the industry ~ many are homeless runaways, and completely desperate when they are first recruited. Many have been sexually exploited since childhood and know nothing else. Many are addicts. Sad stuff.

[fenriswolf]

56. true but is pornography the cause of that or

a symptom? if a symptom then we should get to the root cause.

[polichick]

58. Well, you're not going to ban greed and lust from the planet...

There are always going to be vulnerable members of society and there are always going to be greedy opportunists who are ready, willing and able to exploit them. I'm not going to make excuses for those predators.

[fenriswolf]

75. true

but is he a predator? meaning he sends out his men to find women who are down and out and just looking to be exploited? or do they come to him.

one makes him a predotor
one makes him a buisness man offering a job in the porn industry

[riqster]

28. Yes, Porn is a cause as well as a symptom...

of some serious problems in our society. What Flynt has done WRT to the First Amendment redeems him in my eyes.

Most pornographers have done nothing but rake in the bucks. Flynt has given back to the Constitution that allows him to be in the business he is.

[polichick]

32. Yeah, I give him credit for that (as I posted earlier)...

But I wouldn't say Larry has redeemed himself if he's still in the business. As a candidate, I wouldn't align myself with him.

[riqster]

41. I wouldn't go seeking him out

...and it's hard to say what I would do if I were a candidate and he offered his support. I assume I'd turn it down, but it's easy for me to say.

When I lived in Hollywood, I saw a bit of the porn biz, and it seemed quite exploitive. Too, I used to back strippers when I was a full-time musician, and there was quite a mixed bag there-some deeply troubled women, and some who were simply using male stupidity in order to earn a good tax-free income.

I will not condemn Kooch for accepting support from Flynt, because I assume the decision is based on a mutual support for the FA. That attitude would change he were to introduce earmarks for the porn industry.

[polichick]

43. "introduce earmarks for the porn industry"

Yes, that might be a little much! :)

[fenriswolf]

49. were not asking you to

the point is since larry endorsed kucinich does that make kucinich less of a candidate in your eyes because he is supported by a pornographer? or the same or better candidate because he picked up an advocate for the constitution and the freedom of speech?

[polichick]

55. My take on Kucinich is that he needed the money...

imo this move gives him less of a leg to stand on with regard to criticizing other candidates about their financial supporters.

[fenriswolf]

73. well taking money from people in a reputable buisness

is a little better then taking money from corporations who will be expecting a little something in return IMO. The worst larry flynt might want would be the freedom to put whatever he wants in his magazine, which he mostly does anyways.

[riqster]

79. We'll have to see how it plays out

I'm something of a detail freak. Here are a few thoughts:

Who attended the fundraiser? Are they from the porn industry? Are the contibutions bundled or can they be separated? Can Kooch keep some and not others?

Also, Did DK seek out this endorsement?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. I'm Of Two Minds About Flynt

But Flynt has always pushed the envelope in the pornography industry... I'd discuss the "breakthroughs" but this isn't the appropriate forum...

It is sad what happened to him....

[hootinholler]

34. Um, I think you're mistaken...

Flynt glorifies sex while fighting hypocrisy. Tastefull? No. Advocating misogyny? Hardly, women in his magazine are willing participants not objects. Violence? Show me.

-Hoot

[SaveElmer]

37. No, I'm not...

Of course there is the famous Hustler Cover of a woman in a meatgrinder....

But take a look here...

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/bogado1.html

Instead, we tacitly support pornographers like Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine. Flynt has gained credit for squeezing the work of progressive authors between images of violent degradation. By hiding behind this fact, Flynt is able to repel criticisms about the racist and misogynistic culture he perpetuates. Hustler Magazine now publishes articles of popular left icons such as Greg Palast and Christian Parenti. It is important to understand the type of magazine that Larry Flynt publishes: Hustler is not erotica or sex-positive in any sense of those terms, instead it is pro-capitalist hard-core pornographic degradation. Historically, Hustler Magazine goes many steps beyond simple pornography by using hate speech, directly misogynist, and at times pedophilic imagery throughout its pages.

[fenriswolf]

62. wow great article

taken from a hustler hate webpage from a radio pundit here is the disclaimer

Aura Bogado works with KPFK Radio and Free Speech Radio News (FSRN). The opinions stated herein reflect the views of the author alone and are not those of KPFK or FSRN management or staff, nor do they reflect the editorial positions of KPFK or FSRN

she is entitlted to free speech but please don't pass it off as an independant viewpoint instead of a biased piece by a women with an agenda.

btw what does pedophilic imagery mean? women dressed in school girl outfits?

[SaveElmer]

65. Unbelievable...

Absolutely incredible that Flynt is put up as some kind of hero here...

btw: Not in Our Name apologized to Bogado for the treatment she received from Flynt...

This woman is a liberal and a progressive...and you are bashing her because she thinks Flynt is someone the left should not be embracing...

I'm speechless...

[fenriswolf]

71. not apoligizing

just playing devil's advocate
flynt has always been a polorizing figure that has dark sides and bright sides to him. I am not picturing him as a saint and am not blind as to his buisness and the people he associates with, as a buisness man he is in a degenerate buisness who takes advantage where he can. As an advocate for the constition and free speach and for fighting corruption as a citizen he is steller, so thats my peace. I do not subscribe to his magazine or support his buisness but I will cheer him on as he trys to root out all the sex scandles and unscrupulous behavior in washington.

[wyldwolf]

21. Larry Flynt - Dan Moldea - James Carville - bye bye Newt... Clinton serves entire second term

I do rather prefer Jenna Jamison's endorsement of Hillary. At least they're both better looking and Jamison has been a little outspoken about women's rights and such lately. (Saw her on E! ... among other.. ahem... venues.)

[Selatius]

22. Larry Flynt is a man who helped strengthen the 1st Amendment. That's a plus in my book.

What industry he comes from is overshadowed by his contributions to the 1st Amendment.

[SaveElmer]

40. And he uses it like this...

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/bogado1.html

Sorry...not someone I want anything to do with...

[endarkenment]

47. yes there are people who agree with you

that the erotic is sinful and should be punished and villified. On the other hand, there are others who see this as a first amendment issue and want nothing to do with Moral Crusader types.

[SaveElmer]

50. I don't think the Democratic Party...

Should be supporting this kind of misogyny by allying themselves with Flynt...

[cali]

67. that's just ridiculous

I'm all for the erotic, but Hustler damn well does view women through a very troubling lens. And I'm fine with the endorsement by Flynt, but suggesting that people who see Hustler as misogynistic are moralistic prigs is bullshit of the first order.

[fenriswolf]

74. i agree

does he even know what misogyny is? so does looking at porn make you want to cheat? i should probably tell my wife so she can get me to stop looking at it.

[SaveElmer]

80. Of course I know what it is...

I would not have used the word otherwise...

As I assume you know it is defined as hatred of women...

As I said in my post, Flynt glorifies misogyny in his magazine...and he does...

I am not advocating the banning of Hustler, but I am advocating that the Democratic Part not ally themselves with the man who publishes it...

In my opinion anyone that would consistently publish content that shows a disregard for violence against women, and in fact glorifies it, is a slime ball...I don't care who he is...

[endarkenment]

76. One person's erotica is another's indefensible pornography

The fact that you find Hustler in the latter category is fine, I simply oppose all Moral Crusaders. I'm just guessing, but my guess is that SaveElmer's opposition is not limited to Hustler, nor does SaveElmer view Hustler as some sort of outlier in the realm of erotic expression (it isn't of course but in the other direction.) When I see a post such as SaveElmer's, all sorts of red lights (pun intended) go off. I could be rushing to judgement, but I doubt it.

[SaveElmer]

81. I'm not a prude...

And of course I see a difference between say Playboy and Hustler...

This is not a moral crusade...this is not about erotica or even pornography. Some of the stuff Flynt has published isn't all that far above a snuff film...it's about perpetuating a climate where degrading and demeaning women, where violence against women, is glorified...that is what Flynt does...

In my opinion the Democratic Party should not be accepting, much less encouraging the support of people like Flynt...

[endarkenment]

83. "a difference between say Playboy and Hustler"

upper middle class smut vs lower middle class smut.

whiskey vs beer.

Same stuff wrapped up for different markets. Let me put it this way, if Heffner were making the donation, the OP would be wrong?

[SaveElmer]

84. Hardly...

However, if you are that intent on defending Flynt there is little I can do to dissuade you...

[endarkenment]

85. Heffner just fine, Flynt persona non grata.

I insist that this is just the upper middle class sneering pretentiously at the lower middle class. Playboy and Hustler are the same basic product marketed to different customer bases. That you find them qualitatively different is pretty silly. They both consist of pictures of naked women surrounded by articles nobody actually reads.

[SaveElmer]

87. You simply do not know what you are talking about...

Show me a single example in Playboy on the level of what Hustler has here...Playboy does not glorfy misogyny and violence against women...they do not have pedophile cartoonists on their staff, and don't show women being ground up in meatgrinders on their cover...

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/bogado1.html

That you dismiss it as just pornography displays either a profound ignorance of the topic, or an unwillingness to admit your are wrong...

[endarkenment]

88. OK its a challenge.

WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT

http://www.penthouse.com/t1/?nats=MzozOjE,0,0,0,0
http://playboy.com/
http://hustler.com/mansion1/home.php?cs=1&w=420901

Other than the fact that playboy won't let you see any genitalia without a subscription, the difference between these three websites is not particularly obvious.

[LoZoccolo]

89. I appreciate the two of you kicking my thread, but please let's not let this become...

...something where we are directly posting the "evidence" within the thread. Descriptions of it might suffice. I realize this makes the argument you both are having difficult, and that I haven't actually clicked on your links because I'm at work so I don't know if anything is crossing the line or anything, but I do not want the moderators to lock or delete the thread because of it.

The larger issue I wanted to bring up is the degree to which we hold a candidate accountable for the donors that fund the campaign, and the inferences we draw from the donations. I don't mind the sub-discussion you are having at all because if people are disagreeing then it probably needs to be held, I just want to be able to preserve the surrounding issue as well.

[Selatius]

57. I may disagree with some of the things he says, but I'd defend his right to say it regardless.

I won't let that cloud the issue of defending the 1st Amendment, especially at a time when temptation is high to curb that and the others included with the Bill of Rights.

[SaveElmer]

59. Irrelevent to whether Democrats ought to be embracing this guy...

We have a 1st amendment right to denounce this kind of shit...and I think we should use it...

[Selatius]

63. It is pretty relevant. One of the hardest things to do is to live up to one's principles.

I'm not saying Dennis should accept Larry's endorsement. What I am saying--and I said it from the first post on this thread--is that his contribution to the 1st Amendment should be applauded on its own merits. If you don't like Flynt, fine; that's your prerogative, but that should not be allowed to cloud the record Flynt stands on with the 1st Amendment either.

I never addressed the substance of his free speech, just that he had free speech to begin with.

[fenriswolf]

64. you do have the right

don't buy it. Just don't try to control media like the right wing. or do you want to make it illegal because it offends your sensabilities. long story short if you don't like it don't buy it. if you think what he is doing is illegal report it, if you think what he is doing is unethical well you are free to voice your opinions.

[n2doc]

33. Flynt has brought down more crooked republick pols than Hill could even dream of n/t

[gateley]

45. Mixed blessing for Dennis. As shown in this link, many of us applaud LF's

exposure of Republican hypocrisy, yet are uncomfortable as to how the industry he is affiliated with treats women.

If I were a Dennis supporter, LF's endorsement wouldn't change my mind - I hope Dennis doesn't suffer as a result of this.

But people can see for themselves that Dennis is a good, upstanding person with strong integrity - I think he can overcome the negatives that will be associated with this endorsement.

Go, Dennis!

[LWolf]

60. As long as it's not corporate porn.

:eyes:

[Truth2Tell]

61. Actually LoZoccolo,

Hillary is the neo-con corporate war candidate.

Please keep it straight.

[bvar22]

77. True That!!

If you want:

*More War

*Extended Occupation Of Iraq

*Expansion of hostilities with Iran

*Iraqi Oil Resources given to US Oil Corporations (Oil Law)

*A BIGGER Military

*A BIGGER "Defense" budget

*More unquestioned support for the Right Wing Israeli Government

*More taxpayer money diverted to the Armaments Industry

*More US Jobs shipped overseas

*More US jobs given to low wage foreign workers

*More "Free Trade"

*More Top Down/less grass roots Democratic Party

*More Wealth & Power concentrated into fewer hands

*Millions (Billions?) of taxpayer money diverted into the rich pockets of the Health Insurance Industry

*More Corporate Power Consolidation

*Less Corporatre regulation

*More privitization of the Commons

*More entrenchemnt of "The Unitary Executive"

*Ending investigations and prosecutions of the War/Constitutional Criminals of the Republican administration.

*No REAL attempt to limit the Corporate voice in DC.

If you want MORE of the above, then vote for Hillary!
She's your girl!

[inthebrain]

70. LARRY FLYNT CARRIES MUCH OF THE LIBERTARIEN VOTE!!!!

YAHOOOOOOOEEEEE!!!!!!

See, you don't need to be wish-washy triangulating candidate to win votes from the other side.

Just stand on your issues and stand strong.

Others will come.

You may even change their minds along the way.

[Stop Cornyn]

78. Hillary's voted with the corporate (and related NeoCon) lobby. Has Dennis voted with the porn lobby?

[Forkboy]

82. I thought that was Bill.

[mmonk]

86. Better to stand with Flynt than bush.

[Patchuli]

90. More like the FREEDOM OF SPEECH candidate

Don't trivilize that in your attempt to blacklist DK.