Calling All Liberals!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:

I heard somewhere the grand wizard of the klu klux klan is a registered republican and staunch supporter of the iraq war. Does that mean he and you share the same platform Zeb? Maybe you should reconsider your repub registration. [/quote]

I am sure Zeb along with all the elected republicans would denounce the head of the KKK regardless of his party affiliation.

Will you and the elected democrats denounce Jane Fonda?

Hell, the Democrats keep electing Robert Byrd who was a big shot in the KKK years ago.

You make it too easy Elk.

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:

I heard somewhere the grand wizard of the klu klux klan is a registered republican and staunch supporter of the iraq war. Does that mean he and you share the same platform Zeb? Maybe you should reconsider your repub registration.

I am sure Zeb along with all the elected republicans would denounce the head of the KKK regardless of his party affiliation.

Will you and the elected democrats denounce Jane Fonda?

Hell, the Democrats keep electing Robert Byrd who was a big shot in the KKK years ago.

You make it too easy Elk.[/quote]

I have never supported Jane Fonda and don’t really give a passing thought about her.

The point was made. Zeb was yet again using insidious tactics to say “because Jane Fonda is a dem you shouldn’t be one”. He can dress it up however he or you want to but that was the goal. If someone is going to try that lame tactic they will get it right back.

You pride yourself far too much Zap. I have been accused of being Vroom’s defender, it seems like you are my counterpart for your friends. Anytime something is said about Zeb you are running to defend him.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
While we won’t know if the Iraqi campaign was a good idea or not for years to come, I think most people understand pulling out now would be a disaster.[/quote]

Well, duh.

At this point, we’d settle for a simple “Oops, we made A MISTAKE going in when we did. We were WRONG.”

24

I’d like to see everyone take Zeb AND Elks’s advice and move more towards the center which is neutral with no party affiliation. You know, just looking at the issues as what is best for people and not just your party ideals. Now that would be something. There’s a word for that…progress, I believe.

25

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:

I heard somewhere the grand wizard of the klu klux klan is a registered republican and staunch supporter of the iraq war. Does that mean he and you share the same platform Zeb? Maybe you should reconsider your repub registration.

I am sure Zeb along with all the elected republicans would denounce the head of the KKK regardless of his party affiliation.

Will you and the elected democrats denounce Jane Fonda?

Hell, the Democrats keep electing Robert Byrd who was a big shot in the KKK years ago.

You make it too easy Elk.

I have never supported Jane Fonda and don’t really give a passing thought about her.

The point was made. Zeb was yet again using insidious tactics to say “because Jane Fonda is a dem you shouldn’t be one”. He can dress it up however he or you want to but that was the goal. If someone is going to try that lame tactic they will get it right back.

You pride yourself far too much Zap. I have been accused of being Vroom’s defender, it seems like you are my counterpart for your friends. Anytime something is said about Zeb you are running to defend him.

[/quote]

You just make it too easy for me Elk.
I am just fortunate I had a chance to answer first.

To try to use the KKK against the republicans just invites having Byrd thrown in the mix. Anytime you bring in the KKK the democrats end up looking worse.

The democrats embraced racism for a century before LBJ forced them to repudiate it.

The democrats are a sick party because of the hollywood left influence.

I urge every democrat to reject that hollywood left, just as I urge every republican to reject the right wing extremists.

26

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
While we won’t know if the Iraqi campaign was a good idea or not for years to come, I think most people understand pulling out now would be a disaster.

Well, duh.

At this point, we’d settle for a simple “Oops, we made A MISTAKE going in when we did. We were WRONG.”
[/quote]

You will never get an apology. The only president I remember apologizing was Clinton for things that happened over 100 years ago.

The war may or may not be a mistake. WMD was the excuse we used, but that is not the reason we invaded Iraq.

There are many on the left advocating ending the war. This could only mean pulling out early. And that always sucks.

Most elected democrats are not taking that stance because they know it is a huge mistake.

The far left of the party is raising money by advocating pulling out now, and the elected officials are happy to take that money.

The whole “anti-war” movement appears to be rotten to the core. Those in the know are manipulating the naive kids. I think Jane Fonda falls in the naive category.

27

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think she has any standing with anyone except the extreme left.

Interesting statement in lieu of who currently presides over the democratic party as Chairman.

Howard Dean is as anti Iraq war as anyone and considered very far to the left. Therefore, does Jane have “standing” with in the democratic party? We all know that other “extreme liberals” do. Michael Moore sat in a place of honor next to former President Jimmy Carter. Do you think he is any closer to the center than Jane Fonda?

I would wager that there are many members of the democratic party who either secretly applaud this move of hers, or will openly embrace it!

The democratic party is constantly moving further left. That is only one reason that they are not the majority party in any branch of government.
Those who are currently registered to vote as “democrat” should rethink their position because of people like Howard Dean, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore and others who have brought the party so far left that it has become less admired, less effective and most importantly far less electable!

I heard somewhere the grand wizard of the klu klux klan is a registered republican and staunch supporter of the iraq war. Does that mean he and you share the same platform Zeb? Maybe you should reconsider your repub registration. [/quote]

My point (which seemed to have escaped you) was that the democratic party seems to embrace those who are on the fringe, Michael Moore as a very good example. Seating him next to a former President at the convention? I mean… realll!

Also, I heard the grand wizard was a democrat. And actually the KKK was born in the heart of staunch democratic country. Of course that does not mean that all democrats are racists. :slight_smile:

However, if the party embraces those types then an inference can be drawn. Just as the one I drew with Moore and Fonda from the left…

28

WMD was the excuse we used, but that is not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Well it’s not an intended one but an admission of deceit none the less.

I didn’t say what I said to go tit for tat with the faults of each party for stupidity and faul are on each side, but rather like a said earlier to point out a BS tactit. Can’t you see that???

29

No, that isn’t why they keep losing elections. The elections have been extremely close affairs. There is no arguing with who won, but you shouldn’t go around thinking it was a landslide.

They are losing because they have allowed the republicans free hand with the tactics of deflect, distract, discredit and mischaracterize.

As in claiming that liberals are the same as Jane Fonda or Michael Moore. These are people, individuals, who are opposed to various republican viewpoints. They should be allowed to be seen as no more and no less than this.

These people certainly should not be viewed as defining or setting the liberal platform with respect to upcoming elections. If the democrats are allowing republicans to smear them in this way, they are being naive.

It’s time to stand up an kick republicans that like to mischaracterize liberals by using the worst possible example ultra-liberals and claiming that it is representative of liberal viewpoints in general.

It’s a pile of horseshit and anybody with a brain can see that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people without brains out there. So, with that sad reality, liberals need to act accordingly and aggressively to combat such tactics.

30

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
WMD was the excuse we used, but that is not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Well it’s not an intended one but an admission of deceit none the less.

I didn’t say what I said to go tit for tat with the faults of each party for stupidity and faul are on each side, but rather like a said earlier to point out a BS tactit. Can’t you see that???[/quote]

I agree. WMD was not the reason to go to Iraq. It was a convenient excuse. I am not happy with it. Changing the face of Saudi Arabia is more important. It is also politically impossible to justify. I am not happy with a lot of politics.

I too would rather not go tit for tat. I would rather discuss ideas. We are in the war. What is the best way to win it? What could we be doing better?

People that declare themselves as against the war are taking the intellectually lazy way out. We are all against war. Some of us think we should win it once it starts.

31

The roots of the KKK are true enough with the south and democratic party, but I think you would find more of the current aryan or KKK related groups fall in line with the current far radical right type thinking.

Does a modern KKK guy agree with affirmative action or not going to war with muslims or abortions. The KKK you speak of was from an history past.

To get back to the original point, maybe I used a poor comparison, but it was still Zeb because of his hatred of democrats trying to manipulate people.

32

[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, she is an idiot. She is an ultra liberal too. Her brand of liberalism has infected the Democratic Party. That is why they keep losing elections.

No, that isn’t why they keep losing elections. The elections have been extremely close affairs. There is no arguing with who won, but you shouldn’t go around thinking it was a landslide.

They are losing because they have allowed the republicans free hand with the tactics of deflect, distract, discredit and mischaracterize.

As in claiming that liberals are the same as Jane Fonda or Michael Moore. These are people, individuals, who are opposed to various republican viewpoints. They should be allowed to be seen as no more and no less than this.

These people certainly should not be viewed as defining or setting the liberal platform with respect to upcoming elections. If the democrats are allowing republicans to smear them in this way, they are being naive.

It’s time to stand up an kick republicans that like to mischaracterize liberals by using the worst possible example ultra-liberals and claiming that it is representative of liberal viewpoints in general.

It’s a pile of horseshit and anybody with a brain can see that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people without brains out there. So, with that sad reality, liberals need to act accordingly and aggressively to combat such tactics.[/quote]

You made my point for me with far too many words. Associating with Michael Moore and the like is poison for the party.

Many (most) in the Democratic party do not march lockstep with the far left, yet they allow themselves to be dragged down by them.

Accusing people that don’t agree with you and your party of not having brains is a weak tactic. There are many naive and or outright dumb Democratic voters out there too.

Accusing the Republicans of smear campaigns and mischaracterization is simply the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties live and die by these tactics.

The Democrats are currently dying because they are making it too easy for the Republicans.

Here is a clue, when Michael Moore comes out with his next America hating, self loathing pile of shit movie, don’t go to the premiere. When asked about it, say “Michael Moore is a very talented movie maker. He blends fiction and reality very well.”

33

methinks there are some serious disadvantages to a two party system…

A lot of you guys have an amazing us-or-them attitude…

34

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
The roots of the KKK are true enough with the south and democratic party, but I think you would find more of the current aryan or KKK related groups fall in line with the current far radical right type thinking.

Does a modern KKK guy agree with affirmative action or not going to war with muslims or abortions. … [/quote]

I mostly agree. Many KKK types are actually against the war because they see it as benefiting Israel.

They do generally go the Republican way on most other issues.

The Republicans do a good job of not being seen together with these people.

The Democrats have not learned how to hide their extremists.

As I have said over and over, the Dems have to fix themselves. I am not comfortable with any one party having as much power as the Republicans have right now.

35

gojira wrote:
“JeffR,
Please define “liberal”. Then define “conservative”.
I’ll need to know this before I can comment.
Thank you.”

A liberal is someone who thinks that Iraq was a problem that “needed to be taken care of at some point” but is adamantly against invasion because W. launched it.

A liberal is someone who had exactly the same fears shared by W., expressed said fears, called for removal, voted to authorize war, and then turned on the War for potential political gain.

A liberal is someone who says they are for the “common man” while inventing slogans to prey on their stupidity.

Example: “It’s only a blowjob.”

A liberal is someone who thinks that it was ok for john “I’m living off the leftover dnc funds, bitch” kerry to say “I’ve had one consistent position on Iraq.”

A liberal is someone who didn’t bat an eye at clinton lying under oath, obstructing paula jones’ right to a fair trial, pressuring subordinates to make false claims, stealing furniture from the White House, taking bribes for pardons, sandy berger stealing potentially embarrasing pre-911 information for the National Archives in his jock and then destroying it and then DEMANDING Rove be fired for the suggestion of impropriety. Never mind that no laws appear to have been broken, a liberal is for law and order only when it’s politically expedient.

If you agree with any of these stances or beliefs, then you are a liberal.

JeffR

36

[quote]orion wrote:
methinks there are some serious disadvantages to a two party system…

A lot of you guys have an amazing us-or-them attitude…

[/quote]

You are right. It seems to be us or them. That is not how I feel, but it sure comes across that way over the internet.

I think both parties have good and bad points.

37

[quote]JeffR wrote:
gojira wrote:
“JeffR,
Please define “liberal”. Then define “conservative”.
I’ll need to know this before I can comment.
Thank you.”

A liberal is someone who thinks that Iraq was a problem that “needed to be taken care of at some point” but is adamantly against invasion because W. launched it.

A liberal is someone who had exactly the same fears shared by W., expressed said fears, called for removal, voted to authorize war, and then turned on the War for potential political gain.

A liberal is someone who says they are for the “common man” while inventing slogans to prey on their stupidity.

Example: “It’s only a blowjob.”

A liberal is someone who thinks that it was ok for john “I’m living off the leftover dnc funds, bitch” kerry to say “I’ve had one consistent position on Iraq.”

A liberal is someone who didn’t bat an eye at clinton lying under oath, obstructing paula jones’ right to a fair trial, pressuring subordinates to make false claims, stealing furniture from the White House, taking bribes for pardons, sandy berger stealing potentially embarrasing pre-911 information for the National Archives in his jock and then destroying it and then DEMANDING Rove be fired for the suggestion of impropriety. Never mind that no laws appear to have been broken, a liberal is for law and order only when it’s politically expedient.

If you agree with any of these stances or beliefs, then you are a liberal.

JeffR[/quote]

On a serious note, all kidding aside. You are very sick and need help. With the hatred you show, I wouldn’t put it past you to attempt something very foolish and dangerous to someone like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Fonda for that matter. Get the help you need!

38

Does the woman not learn? Real issues with the Iraq war and Vietnam aside, didn’t the first time around teach her anything? The woman’s an idiot.

39

Jeff, how would you define close-minded, extremist moron? Or do you just prefer to lead by example?

40

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
On a serious note, all kidding aside. You are very sick and need help. With the hatred you show, I wouldn’t put it past you to attempt something very foolish and dangerous to someone like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Fonda for that matter. Get the help you need![/quote]

Steroids…
220 pounds…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!