http://72.3.131.10/
don't miss the gallery, who are these people?
Printable View
http://72.3.131.10/
don't miss the gallery, who are these people?
Bwahahaha.
What a bunch of morons.
That's the kind of thinking that is going to eventually result in one party having 60+ seats in the Senate, which won't be good for any of us.
Run your party like adults, twits.
To be honest, I've been supporting what they are doing. I'm not amercian, but I totally respect what they are trying to do, and have a few friends with pictures in the gallery.
America unfortunately does have a large effect on the rest of the world. I'm glad there is a competition against the people who voted for Bush.
I'm not going to get into any political banter here, but I respect what these people are doing, and think its great!
I take it, then, that you are not the Aristotle they thank so effusively on the homepage.;)Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Bwahahaha.
What a bunch of morons.
That's the kind of thinking that is going to eventually result in one party having 60+ seats in the Senate, which won't be good for any of us.
Run your party like adults, twits.
I do wish my fellow liberals would spend their time and donations on more worthwhile pursuits. I, for one, am focusing on 2008, but unfortunately a lot of dems are STILL stuck on the 2000 Election.:rolleyes
I dont support what they are doing at all. They are acting like 3 year old children that had their toy taken away after getting caught cutting the cat's hair.
This type of childish behavior might be acceptable in other countries, especially those that really dont have anything to lose by strife here, but these people need to learn responsibility for themselves.
The Democrats have become so far left that they are chasing away the former Pres. Clinton supporters to the middle, to Bush's camp. But who do they blame? The rest of the country, certainly not themselves. These pictures are proof of that.
Whiners = more votes for Bush. If this keeps up I can almost predict even more gains for the Republican party in 2006, and 2008 and personally I dont want to see that happen.
I would rather have democrats reach back into the main stream and connect with the people they allege to represent, the average American. Right now they represent left wing nut jobs and make no room for moderates, look at Lieberman he was all but exiled during the campaign while people like Ted Kennedy stood up for Kerry.
There is no justifiable reason to support this type of behavior. These people lost an election, big deal, learn from your mistakes and improve - adapt. The republicans learned from President Clinton and reached out to the middle, over dissent/criticism/etc from various groups. They brought legitimate moderates into the spot light, and they kicked ass.
The "rest" of the world has a serious problem. The "rest" of the world wants America to hand out money, to provide security, and provide humanitarian aid when things go bad. But the rest of the world needs to get its collective head out of its collective ass and realize that America has offered all of that and more.
The "rest" of the world needs to decide whether or not they want American help or they want America to recess back into an isolationist nation. The last time America went isolationist I remember reading that 6 million jews were killed in camps, 6 million others died with them in the same camps. America might not be camelot, but America provides the world with much more good than bad.
Where would Germany, Britian, France, and Russia be right now without the US? Thankfully Britian is a good ally, with good input/criticism. However, the "rest" of the world (France, Russia, Germany, China) can go collectively screw themselves. They get more than pissy when we try to interfere in their business, but refuse to get the hell out of ours.
American elections are the business of no one but Americans. I dont give a damn what people from other countries think. If you want America out of your business, stay out of ours.
Moreover,
This type of behavior (the pictures and whining) really fucking pisses me off. The liberals are trying to portray themselves as this bastion of "sanity" "sensibility" "compassion" "intelligence" and portray anyone that supported Bush as being a "redneck" "homophobe" "idiot" "retard". This behavior is discraceful and rather hypocritical. Liberals AND the rest of the world need to assume responsibility for what happend in this election.
Part of the reason Bush won was that so many people (4 million more than voted for Kerry) were outraged at the international push for Kerry and criticisms of those that supported Bush that more people came to the polls for him. I guess I should thank the international community for rallying people to Bush's side, but this site here is just a great example of people that can't accept the fact that they've become the minority party - that they are out of touch with the main stream.
Like I've said before, I dont think Bush is a good president but Kerry was a horrible alternative. The "rest" of the world is as much to blame for Bush being in office again as the liberals are. The liberals were too narrow minded to select Lieberman as their candidate refusing because of his religion, and the things they say now are a perfect example of their narrow minded zealotry that has driven a majority of Americans to the republican party.
People in the new middle may have to vote democrat across the board in the next 4 elections to undo the harm the "world" and the "liberals" have done by pushing this country so conservative.
The Democrats now call the country a bunch of unintelligent idiots, which is odd because the Democrats used to get the bread and butter of their votes off of groups that are historically uneducated (if at all) without access to equal opportunities as compared those the Republicans have leaned upon. Odd that.
Can't be the democrats fault... must be those homophobes
that website represents liberals? Wow!
Out of curiosity, how representative do you *actually* think these people are of the way the democrats run their party as a whole? It seems to me to be mostly a bunch of young college and 20-somethings-who-have-internet-access, so how big of a slice is that?
I received enough literature from the candidates and their supporters during the primary process to wallpaper the White House. I got calls from their campaigns. I voted in the Democratic primary. At NO time did anyone, except Lieberman's supporters themselves, make reference to his judaism. At NO time did any of the candidates say anything derogatory about his faith. At NO time did any columnist, democratic pundit, or even any "letter to the editor" I recall EVER make a negative reference to Lieberman's faith. Lieberman HIMSELF has made no such claim, and nor have any prominent Jewish Democrats.Quote:
Originally posted by Frobozz
The liberals were too narrow minded to select Lieberman as their candidate refusing because of his religion, and the things they say now are a perfect example of their narrow minded zealotry that has driven a majority of Americans to the republican party.
In fact, the most vocal people who seem to think Lieberman's faith played a role in his losing the primary nomination are extreme right commentators such as Limbaugh and Hannity. Accusing the Democratic Party of antisemitism simply because its members didn't automatically nominate someone just because they are a minority is as ridiculous as accusing YOUR party of racism for not nominating Keyes in 2000.
This has to be one of the funniest things I've read on this board for years.Quote:
People in the new middle may have to vote democrat across the board in the next 4 elections to undo the harm the "world" and the "liberals" have done by pushing this country so conservative.
I was expecting more hotties. I thought liberals were supposed to be hot or something...
You respect things like this?Quote:
Originally posted by kiania
To be honest, I've been supporting what they are doing. I'm not amercian, but I totally respect what they are trying to do, and have a few friends with pictures in the gallery.
1) "Sorry, from the non-millionaires of the world."
Because George Soros, Bruce Springstein, Michael Moore, et. al. are paupers, right?
2) "I didn't know 51% of the US could be so blind."
So people with a different opinion are blind? Very open minded.
3) "Dear World, On behalf of the literate half of America: We are sorry. We tried."
Another gem. So everyone who disagrees with you is illiterate?
4) "World, 49% of us know we aren't more important than everyone else, and we are trying hard to convince the other 51% that this is true. Until that happens, accept my personal apology."
Guess what, dullard, the rest of the world certainly doesn't have our best interests in mind. It is our responsibility to look out for our best interests, because nobody else will. It is the responsibility of other nations to look out for theirs.
Charles de Gaulle said it best: "There are no allies, there are only interests."
5) And this idiot, someone from Europe:
"Dear America, I am sorry you must endure 4 more years of ridiculous laws, tax cuts, and ammendments to your constitution. We tried to help."
Yeah, thanks for the sympathy. Enduring tax cuts is tough. You gotta hate keeping your own money that you worked for.
-------------------
Here's the problem, Kiania:
These people are all acting like immature, stuck up, arrogant, selfish, brats. Simply because their beliefs have been repeatedly unsuccessful, they think that means all the other people are just stupid, blind, or illiterate.
It is this attitude that will continue to push our country even further to the right. That is something I consider a BAD THING.
When they figure out how to drop the class warfare crap and when they realize our first responsibility is to our own country, not to the world, things will improve enormously.
Unfortunately, that site is just the tip of the iceberg.Quote:
Originally posted by aelyn
Out of curiosity, how representative do you *actually* think these people are of the way the democrats run their party as a whole? It seems to me to be mostly a bunch of young college and 20-somethings-who-have-internet-access, so how big of a slice is that?
The degree to which the far left is denigrating the votes made by the majority of our country is just appalling.
It threatens to drive our country even further to the right which would be a very damaging turn of events. When one set of beliefs gains that kind of power, nothing good can come of it.
For example:
<HR>
The New York Times:
Today, Bob Herbert wrote that people "who voted for President Bush are simply dumb."
That's very mature there, Bob.
On November 4, Maureen Dowd wrote:
So nobody chose to vote for him because they believe in things like low taxes or fighting terrorism aggressively. They voted for him because they were herded like cattle by having their bigotry appealed to?Quote:
The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.
W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
That's an "open minded" liberal speaking?
Actually Maureen, the far left dominated democratic party is doing that (you're helping) and that's what ticks me off.Quote:
He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.
The far left media is driving people to what few sources there are that maintain standards of objectivity.
The far left that controls the democratic party is rotting it out from within and letting the other party run roughshod each election.
One nation does dominate, but I'm sure you're doing your best to fix that.
On November 7, she wrote:
That disgusting personal attack is what she opened with. They actually keep her on the payroll.Quote:
Just how much did Karl Rove hate not being one of the cool guys in high school in the 60's? Enough to hatch schemes to marshal the forces of darkness to take over the country?
Oh, yeah.
Absolutely amazing. That is journalism?Quote:
But this White House's frontier is not a place of infinite progress and expansion, stretching society's boundaries. It doesn't battle primitivism; it courts primitivism.
W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.
Then there is Paul Krugman.
On November 5th he wrote:
Aha. President Bush hates America. By extension, anyone who voted for him must hate America too, right?Quote:
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is.
Get in the game, Paul.
<HR>
Slate magazine has been publishing some gems lately as well.
Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue
Aha. So if you didn't vote for Kerry, you are either stupid or greedy.Quote:
The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)
Pathetic.
It is amazing that they published this tripe.Quote:
Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time.
Michael Kinsley, writer for Slate and editorial page editor for the LA Times wrote:
I get it. Only lefties are open minded and reasonable.Quote:
"We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We are if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist."
These people wonder why they keep getting crushed and dominated?
<HR>
Britain's Daily Mirror wrote:
<HR>Quote:
How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?
A few more beauties from TV:
Quote:
Though Bush was the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the vote, on CBS's Late Show, Al Franken downgraded the Bush victory by emphasizing how "Bush won this election by a smaller percentage than any incumbent President who was re-elected, I believe, in history." Franken, attempting some humor, dismissed the swath of red on the U.S. state map by insisting that "a lot of the red is desert. And there's, like, no people there" and "the electoral college favors people who vote in the desert."
When asked how his Air America radio show is going, Franken took a shot at Rush Limbaugh: "We're doing incredibly well. We were beating Rush in many cities, Rush Limbaugh, big fat idiot, a drug addict."
Franken's Air America Web page features, "COMEDY BIT: THE BUSH-SATAN CONNECTION: From Friday's The Al Franken Show, Al and Katherine discuss the possible connection between Bush...and SATAN. DUN dun dun."
Quote:
Bush won thanks to "voter fraud," actress Susan Sarandon contended to HBO's Bill Maher. When Maher maintained that Kerry "lost, by a lot," Sarandon countered: "Wait a minute. You better tune in to some of the other channels." She cited "this black box thing," a mis-reported vote total in one Ohio town, "and the hanging chads and the provisional votes -- this was not the way the voting's supposed to work." Quite serious, she reported that "Ralph Nader's very close to filing something about what went on in New Hampshire." Plus, "lots and lots of problems in Florida. And in New Mexico. It's all coming in now."
<HR>Quote:
Lawrence O'Donnell predicted on the McLaughlin Group that there will be "a serious discussion of secession over the next twenty years" since "the segment on the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government."
And then there is the evidence that the Democratic Party is going to go the WRONG WAY and push our country even MORE to the right:
1) Hillary in 2008.
2) Choosing Howard Dean to be the next DNC Chairman.
3) Paul Krugman again: "One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition."
No Paul, that's the only WINNING proposition. The idea of getting even more radically left is the losing proposition that will eliminate all hope of some balance in our parties.
- Drop the class warfare.
- Drop the disdain for people with different political opinions.
- Drop the belief that the world's opinion takes priority over taking care of ourselves.
- Drop it before our already abysmal two-party system turns into a one-party system.
I said I agreed with the general concept, not with the exact words some people are using. Bearing in mind that I only read the page when it was just 1 page, and now has expanded into godknowswhat...
Last I'm saying on the matter.
That's funny because Kerry specifically said in the primary debates that Lieberman's religious belief would be an insurmountable hurdle to overcome in the race for the presidency. Lieberman acknowledged it and agreed.Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
I received enough literature from the candidates and their supporters during the primary process to wallpaper the White House. I got calls from their campaigns. I voted in the Democratic primary. At NO time did anyone, except Lieberman's supporters themselves, make reference to his judaism. At NO time did any of the candidates say anything derogatory about his faith. At NO time did any columnist, democratic pundit, or even any "letter to the editor" I recall EVER make a negative reference to Lieberman's faith. Lieberman HIMSELF has made no such claim, and nor have any prominent Jewish Democrats.
In fact, the most vocal people who seem to think Lieberman's faith played a role in his losing the primary nomination are extreme right commentators such as Limbaugh and Hannity. Accusing the Democratic Party of antisemitism simply because its members didn't automatically nominate someone just because they are a minority is as ridiculous as accusing YOUR party of racism for not nominating Keyes in 2000.
Btw, Im not a Republican and have voted for more independant/democrats than I have for Republicans. Just a side note before you jump off the deep end of assumption.
Well, hopefully a great deal of democrats aren't turning into adolescent, far lefty whiners. These guys seem to be trying to learn from their mistakes:
Democrats United Against Michael Moore
Some snippets...
Quote:
So now, we Democrats are left in the difficult position of having to address what went wrong. If we refuse to do so, we will continue to lose representation in our federal government.
Quote:
It is time that we, as Democrats, start getting it. A good portion of this country is populated with plain, simple, conservative folks. And while that doesn't mean that we need to cater our ideology to them, we do need to be much more careful about the manner of our presentation.
Can you support this with a source? I can't find any reference to any such thing. I'm looking through the coverage on the debates, and I just don't see it. I also don't remember any such exchange between the two candidates during any of the debates.Quote:
Originally posted by Frobozz
That's funny because Kerry specifically said in the primary debates that Lieberman's religious belief would be an insurmountable hurdle to overcome in the race for the presidency. Lieberman acknowledged it and agreed.
So conservatives are all plain, and simple folk not capable of higher thinkin? Rednecks maybe? Homophobes perhaps?Quote:
Originally posted by Yatar
Well, hopefully a great deal of democrats aren't turning into adolescent, far lefty whiners. These guys seem to be trying to learn from their mistakes:
Democrats United Against Michael Moore
It is time that we, as Democrats, start getting it. A good portion of this country is populated with plain, simple, conservative folks. And while that doesn't mean that we need to cater our ideology to them, we do need to be much more careful about the manner of our presentation.
Some snippets...
Moreover, this site seems to argue that Nader is to 2000 what Moore is to 2004 = no responsibility, someone elses fault.
This site is better but the underlying ideology is still there.
I guess you can look at it that way. For me, I thought of "simple, plain and conservative" as a compliment, or in the least as just a description of ideology. Just kind of a "hey, not all Americans think like us, and that's okay. But we should realize that and act accordingly." And they certainly didn't make it an all-or-none statement.Quote:
Originally posted by Frobozz
So conservatives are all plain, and simple folk not capable of higher thinkin? Rednecks maybe? Homophobes perhaps?
...
This site is better but the underlying ideology is still there.
But if you want to make it into a stereotypical right-wing-bashing statement...well, go for it, I guess.
I'd just remember that it's democrats talking to democrats, and doesn't have to be worded as diplomatically as it would if it was going to be picked apart by the opposition or the media.
:shrugs:
The use of "simple" is definitely an insult.
Why can't they realize that a lot of people just do not accept the merits of class warfare?
Why can't they realize that taxes are indeed government sponsored theft that represents taking money away from people who earned it. Taxes are NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY. That is money TAKEN away from the person who rightfully owns it. It is done for some important reasons, but it is vital that the mindset remain that the money is NOT the governments. The person who earned the money has the highest claim to it. Thus, any tax should be done with extreme care and should be as minimal as possible.
When you believe the government is the source of all solutions, you have a problem.
When you believe the government can solve most problems better than people can solve them for themselves, you not only have a problem but you're just wrong.
When you do not believe in personal accountability and responsibility, you've got a problem.
The democrats do not have to continue on this destructive path of class warfare if they do not want to. I'd love to see them dumb that insidious and pernicious aspect of their philosophy.
George Will, writing for the Washington Post:Quote:
An online poll conducted by the Web site Democratic Underground found that 72 percent agree that Bush's re-election was the more devastating of the two events, with 28 percent who said it wasn't.
DU members were invited to explain their votes. One typical response:
"9/11 was an outside attack on our country and was terrible. 11/3 was an inside attack on everything our country stands for and should be, it will have been far worse historically."
From what I read elsewhere, the commentators on PBS actually discussed seriously how "the right" might very realistically attempt a coup d'etat if they lost the election.Quote:
On election night on public television -- your tax dollars at work -- Bill Moyers said: ``I think if Kerry were to win this in a -- in a tight race, I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. ... I mean that the right wing is not going to accept it.'' Moyers, the emblematic face of public television, is an intellectual icon in the sort of deep blue precincts that think red America is paranoid.
You're certainly welcome to think that. But though it can be used as an insult, it is not always so.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
The use of "simple" is definitely an insult.
I come from a background where it's very respected if you live a quiet, simple life. It's the same type of mindset that looks down on the always-on-the-go, keep-up-with-the-Joneses rushing of stereotypical urbanite yuppies. So for me, when you start thinking and living more simply, you're taking a step up, not a step down.
Do some democrats use 'simple' as an insult, and engage in the class warfare you're talking about? Yeah, and it's sickening. But not all of them do. And though I could be wrong, I don't think the posted link was doing that. I rather think it's unwise to read 'class warfare' into anything that a group of organized democrats put out. That's like democrats reading homophobia and racism into everything the republicans say.
I dunno, but I'd rather give both sides the benefit of the doubt. I guess I'm just one of those simple optimists.
I hope so.
Let me put it this way:
When the left is referring to the right as "simple", they mean it in a condescending fashion.
The left believes it is the sole arbiter of what is reasonable, logical, intelligent, stylish, respectable, moral, fair, insulting, degrading, uplifting, etc.
When they call someone simple, they are definitely talking down to them.
Yes! CHICKS WITH GUNS!!! and CHICKS IN BIKINIS!!Quote:
I agree that this happens with a lot of the hardcore left-wing snot, but like I said, I don't think that was the intent here. It was just talking about a difference in political mindset (like the philosophy of a good & evil vs. a spectrum of gray...the first is obviously simpler), not so much a condescending "we're better than them but we'll pander to them for their votes" type thing. They weren't even talking about the "right." They were talking about regular, American people in the middle. And they were observing rather than judging.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Let me put it this way:
When the left is referring to the right as "simple", they mean it in a condescending fashion.
The left believes it is the sole arbiter of what is reasonable, logical, intelligent, stylish, respectable, moral, fair, insulting, degrading, uplifting, etc.
When they call someone simple, they are definitely talking down to them.
But who knows what their original motives were, right? If they were in fact being condescending, shame on them. They're dumb. But if they weren't...well, then good for them for at least trying to break free from the other left-wing lemmings.