*Death Of The Democratic Party*

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have to open with my Death Blow to the Democratic Party.
2. The Democrats have stolen power for far to long now.
2.1. And even though the Republicans have both The Senate, And House of Congress Majority wise, The Democrats with the Rino's, (Republicans In Name Only), in the Republican Party have lost all Honor in American Politics.
3. This kind of Politics is poison for open and transparent Governing of this Nation.
4. Because All Americans are being deceived.
4. 1. And its all on those sneaky Democrats, there isn't such an animal as the Dino's, (*Democrats In Name Only*)
5. And this is how you know that only the Democrats have gone bad.
6. The Republicans that are real Republicans are good and honest People, who wait and are ready to bare attacks by the Liberals, who slander them out of office or into Jails for false charges.
7. They have the power to do this, run a Republican out of office, while they get a free pass every time an ethical issue surfaces, Reids Free Boxing Tickets come to mind, just recently.
8. I shall give my list of all the proofs of who else got a free pass later in this thread.
9. The Democrats have to Die, plain and simple, and reform their Party with a new name for which I am ready to give them.
10. *The Moving Forward Party*
11. Its the least I can do after I kill off their old Party Name.
12. They must promise to stay within this New Party.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[EXDIA53]

Both the GOP and Democratic parties are "big tent" parties with sub-groups of hardcore ideologues.Â*Â*The wacko "DemocraticUnderground.com" left and the wacko "kill-em-all" right could not get elected to anything without the vast middle.Â*Â*In the last eight to ten years, the vast middle has slewed to the right, making the hard right wack-jobs think they are in the majority.Â*Â*It will change, of course, as it always does, because US politics is cyclical.Â*Â*In twenty-five years or so, nobody on the national political scene would think of saying anything sounding like George W. Bush, and then in fifty years he'll be a hero again.
The far right and the far left in America have the same problem - they don't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with them.Â*Â*No one ever learns anything from that, and it shows.Â*Â*I remember about 1976 everyone thought the Republican Party was dead, even the Republicans.

[Newscaster]

The Democratic Underground in no way represents all Democrats and the Free Republic, despite believing it speaks for all righties, does not.
If they did, we would be called The United States of Lemmings. The problem we have is that the Middle refuses to stand up and take a stand. We have to tell those on the extreme right and extreme left that when you take anything to the extreme, it goes bad. Thats what we have now with the Three R's, Rove, Rice And Rumsfeld in charge.

Eat too much and you get TOO fat.
Drink TOO much and you become an alky.

Some day, you should all go to a harbor and watch the longshoremen load cargo on a ship. They dont put all the containers on the right or the left. If they did, the ship would turn over. They balance it so that weight is distributed evenly. Then the ship can sail safely, even in rough water.

[EXDIA53]

The Democratic Underground in no way represents all Democrats and the Free Republic, despite believing it speaks for all righties, does not.
If they did, we would be called The United States of Lemmings. The problem we have is that the Middle refuses to stand up and take a stand. We have to tell those on the extreme right and extreme left that when you take anything to the extreme, it goes bad. Thats what we have now with the Three R's, Rove, Rice And Rumsfeld in charge.

Eat too much and you get TOO fat.
Drink TOO much and you become an alky.

Some day, you should all go to a harbor and watch the longshoremen load cargo on a ship. They dont put all the containers on the right or the left. If they did, the ship would turn over. They balance it so that weight is distributed evenly. Then the ship can sail safely, even in rough water.

[EXDIA53]

OOPS! Excellent post, Newscaster. If you put Dick Cheney and Rus Feingold in the same room, will they cease to exist?

[Newscaster]

No, putting Cheney and Feingold into a single room will not make them both disappear. But maybe, it will force them to sit down and discuss the merits of cooperation. Maybe they will be able to understand just how divided this country has become, more divided even than in 1860.
Maybe they will be able to understand that this country is made up totally of people whose ancestors came from somewhere else and brought with them different viewpoints about almost everything. And maybe they will understand that it was that difference that served to make this country great rather than tear it apart because there were two things they all shared......the love of freedom and the fact that they were all Americans. And voicing a specific viewpoint was not considered treason or any other such nonsense. We all had a single goal...back then.
Today, I am not sure we have a goal. We are like a car careening downhill in neutral and no one is trying to apply the brakes.

I apologize for getting on my soapbox but I am an od man now, I have seen more than most and experienced as much as anyone and I dont like the state this country is in now and I like even less the people who dragged her down to this sorry state.

This is a forum for the discussion of ideas. It is not a place to snipe at one another or to make baseless allegations against each other. I see this as a place to understand one another and to try, if possible, to find solutions to problems instead of firing off insults and then strutting around thinking you have accomplished something.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But the Liberal Democrats have got a huge mess to clean up in their own Party first.
2. Problem is they are in both Party's now, this does two things. (I love the two things answers)
2.a) First it sinks their morals to less than gutter politics.
2.b) Secondly, it taints the Republican Party, with liberal voting blocks, effectively crippling the Republicans just enough to control everything at times.
3. Unless they admit this and come clean to the VOTERS, this will always be their down fall.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Wow, Sir James of texas, you analysis of the situation was quite astonishing. In fact, it was as astonishing as it was wrong.

First, do you believe that the Democratic Party is made up only of liberals? Ever hear of Joe Lieberman who is a Democratic rightist, almost to the point that he is an honorary Neocon. There are liberals in the democratic party to be sure, but there are also moderates and conservatives. So, when you attack Democrats, be careful what size brush you use to establish guilt.

Your second point is totally unintelligible.

Then of course you have point 2A in which you say democratic morals are less than gutter politics. Really, just hour moral was it to lie about
the reasons we found ourselves in Iraq and how moral is it to have over 25 hundred young men die in a bogus war and the declare we must "stay the course"?
Then you have point 2b in which you say something or other taints the Republican Party. With this party's record so far, how much more can they be tainted? And you say the Democrats have crippled the GOP just enough to run everything? Wow...that one really floored me.

As far as coming clean, will the GOP come clean about stealing elections in 2000 and 2004? Will the GOP explain why it is so many of their members are being indicted and convicted on a variety of criminal charges?
Can they explain why so many of the party'sd own membership is turning against the party?

I can make a list here as long as your arm but that I believe would be pointless since you dont see to be awake.

But keep trying Sir James. Oh, BTW, titles such as "Sir" are not recognized for Americans. I assume you also claim to be American.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this Nation is divided properly, there needs to be a division.
2. The main reason why is the New Media, sparked it.
3. Before they came along, there was no other voice.
4. Before they came along there was no other view point.
5. Before the New Media came, we had to digest all the Liberal crap full time.
6. Then there was light! (FOX NEWS)
7. I pay an extra 10.00 a month just to get it, and don't tell anyone but I would pay 20.00.
8. The single goal you refer to was the single Media crap we all were hooked on.
9. Thank Gawd those days are over, and sound reasoning came to light.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[wonder cow]

Before the New Media came, we had to digest all the Liberal crap full time.

Real media should always be slightly tilted to the left. Because of the nature of the beast, 'media' protects itself by staying to the left.

In fact, mainstream media news of the last 20 years is slightly to the right of center, which I realize runs afoul of popular myth.

The appearance of a leftist slant among most journalists today is not because they have moved more to the left, but rather because the rest of the majority of the country has moved much more to the right, post Regan and especially post Clinton's conservative, surrendering, sell out of a presidency.

Then there was light! (FOX NEWS)

You mean FOX “news�. When your regular “news� anchors do ad-hoc commentary, what you have yourself is a joke of a network that panders to a very narrow demographic of overly macho-mentaled* individuals who also think professional wrestling is "real".

FOX “news� is, in essence, the professional wrestling of journalism.

* my word

[Newscaster]

BRavo wonder cow.....couldn't have said it better myself.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if you pay close attention to the Liberal Media's you will see, that they have a three fold format.
a) Story Scares You.
b) Story Makes You Mad.
c) Story Makes You Scared and Mad.
2. There is very little hope in the Liberal Media, and this fact affects the Liberal Politicians, for they both feed off each other.
3. The basic fact that this is a reality does three things.
a) Makes them implode. Scared mad people don't use common sense.
b) De-face's their Party. Scared mad people don't work together.
c) Destroys their base. Scared mad people can not be counted on.
4. All FOX NEWS has to do is keep doing what they are doing, keep it fair and balanced, let them say what the Liberal talking points are, to re-affirm them on FOX, this keeps it real, and bolsters there effectiveness.
5. The Liberals are imploding, we don't have to do much to effect it, they are doing it to themselves.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Yeah, you keep defending Faux News with their fading ratings as the nation comnes to realize that theier "Fair & Balanced" news is anything but fair and balanced.

Now, you call yourself a businessman. Okay, I'll accept that but please tell me how you have the time to run a business and read all those newspapers, and listen to all those programs on radio and TV and all the rest. What kind of business gives you all that time?

A curbside lemonade stand?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my business is my business.
2. You know I am correct.
3. You just can't understand how I figured it out yet.
4. You want to attack, but you ran out of bullets years ago.
5. You say you were a liberal spin doctor for some rag.
6. Your way with words betrays you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Since you are from Texas, I may assume you consider yourself a gunslinger.....fastest gun, all that stuff.


Thats fine.Â*Â* But actually I amÂ*Â*not at all interested in what kind of business you claim to have. I am too busy laughing.Â*Â* Yeah, real gunslinger.

[Nathan Brazil]

Before the New Media came, we had to digest all the Liberal crap full time.

Real media should always be slightly tilted to the left. Because of the nature of the beast, 'media' protects itself by staying to the left.

What? Why shouldn't real media simply stick with telling the truth and leave editorializing for the editorial and commentary segments?


In fact, mainstream media news of the last 20 years is slightly to the right of center, which I realize runs afoul of popular myth.

In other words, CNN, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, and MSNBC, as well as the NY Times and practically any other newspaper, aren't mainstream.

I knew that already.

The appearance of a leftist slant among most journalists today is not because they have moved more to the left, but rather because the rest of the majority of the country has moved much more to the right, post Regan and especially post Clinton's conservative, surrendering, sell out of a presidency.

What sell out of a presidency? Oh. You mean Clinton's coffee klatches. Got it.

Reagan slowed the leftward slide of the nation. The pervert hiding between the bushes, and the bushes themselves, have done everything they can to accelerate that slide once again.

Let's see...spending on useless crap has soared. Any concept of budget restraint has vanished. Taxes are lowered, true...but after the First Bush and the Rapist hiked them, they're still higher than when Reagan left office. Not only that, lowering taxes without cutting spending is like paying one legged man to win a three legged race. Evil cornservative Tom Delay actually stated that there's no place left to cut the budget. That's how far to the left the GOP has fallen.

[wonder cow]

What? Why shouldn't real media simply stick with telling the truth and leave editorializing for the editorial and commentary segments?

But what is the truth and how is it presented? Sure journalist should try to remain as un-bias as possible, and after doing so their efforts should land them just left of center. If not, they are only propagandist for "the man".

The media has always been an informal part of the checks and balances in our system. And against whom? It must always be against those with power. The "real" right, not the blowjobs that listen to talk radio and watch NASCAR every Sunday but the ones with wads and wads of cash, have always had and always will have the power in this country. Even at those rare moments in American history when so called "liberals" held the majority of elected offices, the "right", aka "The man", still had the power.

In other words, CNN, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, and MSNBC, as well as the NY Times and practically any other newspaper, aren't mainstream.

I would not call MSNBC 'mainstream'. But the others, yes. Otherwise I'm not sure the point that you are making unless it is to disagree with my assertion that 'mainstream' media is actually slightly right of center as opposed to the oft bellowed cry of 'liberal' media.

What sell out of a presidency? Oh. You mean Clinton's coffee klatches. Got it.

Moving to the center, which actually was a move to right of center, provided a short term political gain, at least in terms of holding the office of president.

However, to much was lost. The trade agreements during the Clinton era eventually ravaged American manufacturing and screwed American workers. Unions were left much weaker after the Clinton years. Clinton did not slow out sourcing nor the continued demise of oversight on financial institutions, but rather propagated both.

All in all, consumers and workers both suffered from political compromises made during the 90's.True, Clinton was much more responsible financially than these goons running the show today, and was certainly superior politically and administratively, but all in all I am happy with my description of his presidency as a "sell out".

Not only that, lowering taxes without cutting spending is like paying one legged man to win a three legged race.

I agree. It's absurd.

That's how far to the left the GOP has fallen.

Both the left and the right have always enjoyed blowing money up a whale's ass, just on different things.

And all apologies to Regan and both Bushies, but deficit spending is not consistent with traditional financial conservatism.

As I think you addressed, I laugh out loud every time one of these jokers use the term "neo-con". If "neo" somehow meant "not at all", then maybe it is accurate.

Although a liberal in the classic sense myself, I much prefer old fashioned conservatives, because even though I disagree with them, there can be a reasonable debate over ideology. With this modern three ring circus variety of 'conservative', it is impossible to have a reasonable debate over ideology because they don't seem to have a coherent set of beliefs. They just run around the big tent honking their noses and stepping on each others big clown feet.

What is scary, is they have managed to win the last two presidential elections. Or at least, the last one.

[Nathan Brazil]

What? Why shouldn't real media simply stick with telling the truth and leave editorializing for the editorial and commentary segments?

But what is the truth and how is it presented? Sure journalist should try to remain as un-bias as possible, and after doing so their efforts should land them just left of center. If not, they are only propagandist for "the man".

Truth? How can NBC be considered truthful when it sits on a major interview with an extremely credible witness accusing the president, then under impeachment for perjury related to sexual misconduct and associated criminal acts? They deliberately clouded the truth.

There's been damn little truth out in the mainstream media regarding any political issue. They pick a side, almost always the left side, and boost that.

Love Canal...one had to dig to discover that Hooker Chemical didn't want to sell the property, and that the Niagara Falls school board totally ignored Hooker's warnings about what was under that ground. Yet the media and propagandists like Al Bore, used Love Canal as an example of irresponsible corporate greed, not irresponsible government greed plus ignorance.

Yeah, what is truth? Truth is telling enough of a story so that the whole picture can be drawn by the individual without needing interested parties to connect the dots.

Unfortunately, because the news is presented on an eigth grade level, it's not possible to present the truth effectively, not to mention that most people in the media actually think getting past the eigth grade was an accomplishment.

The media has always been an informal part of the checks and balances in our system. And against whom? It must always be against those with power.

Oh, so when the media was busy covering up for the Clinton's they were doing it because the evil Republicans had control of the House and Senate? Even though it was obvious to any honest person that it was indeed the Clintons that were the criminals?

The function of the media is to present the truth, not play partisan games. The liberal media reported that Bush won Floriduh before the polls in Floriduh were closed. Accident? No, of course not. The media is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. However, since they were right, for once, the only harm done was that it provided the media and the loser left with a permanent mantra of how "Bush stole the election". Why is this continually repeated by the left-wing columnists when the facts show otherwise?

The "real" right, not the blowjobs that listen to talk radio and watch NASCAR every Sunday but the ones with wads and wads of cash, have always had and always will have the power in this country. Even at those rare moments in American history when so called "liberals" held the majority of elected offices, the "right", aka "The man", still had the power.

Oh, you mean like the evil right wing Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Or the Ultra-Right Wing demon George Soros?

BTW...most Republican politician are liberals.

In other words, CNN, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, and MSNBC, as well as the NY Times and practically any other newspaper, aren't mainstream.

I would not call MSNBC 'mainstream'. But the others, yes. Otherwise I'm not sure the point that you are making unless it is to disagree with my assertion that 'mainstream' media is actually slightly right of center as opposed to the oft bellowed cry of 'liberal' media.

Oh, it's beyond obvious that the media is anything but right of center. They're left of center, as the center is defined today, let alone how it used to be defined. Even the so-called "right-wing" FOX News is on the left in it's coverage. Look at O'Reilly, a "moderate" if there ever was one, and that means "lefty" in anyone's sense of the word.

What sell out of a presidency? Oh. You mean Clinton's coffee klatches. Got it.

Moving to the center, which actually was a move to right of center, provided a short term political gain, at least in terms of holding the office of president.

Who moved to the "center"? You can't mean Bushy, he campaigned as a liberal, and he's presided as a liberal. Clearly you can't mean Clinton, he has no compass at all, yet he managed to satisfy the lunatic left quite handily.

However, to much was lost. The trade agreements during the Clinton era eventually ravaged American manufacturing and screwed American workers. Unions were left much weaker after the Clinton years. Clinton did not slow out sourcing nor the continued demise of oversight on financial institutions, but rather propagated both.

American workers got screwed? The nation has a low 4% unemployment rate, has had it for decades. It would be lower, but both political parties find one advantage or another in permitting the illegal invasion of this country to continue. Our economy grows, people that want to work find jobs, and what's to complain about? Sheesh, it's like you people don't remember Ford and Carter.

All in all, consumers and workers both suffered from political compromises made during the 90's.True, Clinton was much more responsible financially than these goons running the show today, and was certainly superior politically and administratively, but all in all I am happy with my description of his presidency as a "sell out".

All in all, Americans have suffered from political compromises made since at least Roosevelt's Administration, Teddy Roosevelt's.

Clinton wasn't any more responsible fiscally than Bush or any other president. Government didnt' stop growing, spending didn't slow down. And yes, Clinton's presidency was indeed a sell out. The Chinese got some really neat rocket technology, they got themselves some top-line nuclear bomb technology, and he got some much needed campaign money in return. Clinton also refused to take a terrorist named bin Laden when he was offered up, and there's a whole list of corrupt acts he and his gang participated in.

Certainly Bush is a sell out. He campaigned as a liberal, he's been presiding as a liberal, and frankly, he hasn't done anything I haven't really expected him to do. Now he's bending over for Vicente Fox, and he'll bend over for the new Mexican president, too. He's sold out to the environmental weirdos and drilling for oil along our coasts is pretty much a dead issue, as is that puddle of oil up in Alaska.

Not only that, lowering taxes without cutting spending is like paying one legged man to win a three legged race.

I agree. It's absurd.

That's how far to the left the GOP has fallen.

Both the left and the right have always enjoyed blowing money up a whale's ass, just on different things.

And all apologies to Regan and both Bushies, but deficit spending is not consistent with traditional financial conservatism.

As for Reagan, I will certainly point out that he came after Carter, who'd let the military preparedness of this country slip, and that had to be corrected. Plus there was the Cold War. Russia was clearly the biggest threat to US security we ever faced. By spending money on the military, we pushed the Soviet Union off the cliff they'd been teetering on. That was a well spent investment, since if we'd remained weak, like the Democrats always want us to be, the USSR might have considered military options on the outside to treat various internal ills.

The Democrats didn't do anything to shrink domestic waste, either.

As I think you addressed, I laugh out loud every time one of these jokers use the term "neo-con". If "neo" somehow meant "not at all", then maybe it is accurate.

Although a liberal in the classic sense myself, I much prefer old fashioned conservatives, because even though I disagree with them, there can be a reasonable debate over ideology. With this modern three ring circus variety of 'conservative', it is impossible to have a reasonable debate over ideology because they don't seem to have a coherent set of beliefs. They just run around the big tent honking their noses and stepping on each others big clown feet. [/qoute]

Oh. You've played the old game of asking "what's 'conservative' mean?" too, have you? It's funny when no one can answer. Naturally, the modern liberal can't define what a "liberal" is, either, since they can't make themselves say the word "socialist".

[quote=wonder cow]What is scary, is they have managed to win the last two presidential elections. Or at least, the last one.

No, they won the last two elections. There's no doubt about that.

The interesting thing about that is that they continue to govern from the left while they campaign from the center, even though the people as a whole are moving to the right.

[wonder cow]

Truth? How can NBC be considered truthful when it sits on a major interview with an extremely credible witness accusing the president, then under impeachment for perjury related to sexual misconduct and associated criminal acts? They deliberately clouded the truth.

Do you have a source? What reasons did NBC give for doing so, and is it inconsistent with the way they have treated other presidents?

one had to dig to discover that Hooker Chemical didn't want to sell the property

Maybe they didn't. But that does not excuse years of pumping that shit into the ground. This was the big story, not that some idiots in the community did not fully realize the extent of the pollution when they built homes and a school there.

Oh, so when the media was busy covering up for the Clinton's they were doing it because the evil Republicans had control of the House and Senate? Even though it was obvious to any honest person that it was indeed the Clintons that were the criminals?

This argument always slays me. For months and months on end, all CNN and NBC and CBS and the other evil 'liberal' media outlets talked about was the Monica Lewikinski, Kenneth Star mess. You could not turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without being saturated in this crap.

And they covered all these so called 'scandals' with equal ferocity: white water, the stamp office thing, the various and sundry floozies, the Vincent Foster suicide.

And after millions and millions of dollars spent by the special prosecutor, what did they have at the end? Not a damn thing.

The only thing they discovered was that Clinton was screwing around. And we already knew that.

The media during the Clinton era was ruthless and blasted him continuously, ever chance they got.

People who see it otherwise are seeing what they want to see.

and lastly

As for Reagan, I will certainly point out that he came after Carter, who'd let the military preparedness of this country slip, and that had to be corrected.

The military was already in bad disrepair due to the Vietnam War, well before Carter took office. It was the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR and the failed rescue attempt of the hostages that brought this to light. Carter flipped his position on defense spending after this and initiated the build up that continued through the Regan years.

[Newscaster]

When you are talking about truthfulness within the media, I wonder why FOX news is never mentioned. They have a slogan "Fair and Balanced".
But if you would patronize a website called "Media Matters For America."
Its job is to find mistakes in news coverage, exaggerations, and downright lies. Fox news is listed almost everyday as violating one thing or another. You will also see the names of the regular radio and TV networks but its mostly Fox. You will also see Hannity's name, Limbaugh's and Savage as well as Coulter and a bunch of other likeminded radio talk show hosts.

So, if you have even the slightest notion that your views are fair and balanced, you owe it to yourself to check out Media Matters.

[Nathan Brazil]

Truth? How can NBC be considered truthful when it sits on a major interview with an extremely credible witness accusing the president, then under impeachment for perjury related to sexual misconduct and associated criminal acts? They deliberately clouded the truth.

Do you have a source? What reasons did NBC give for doing so, and is it inconsistent with the way they have treated other presidents?

You were in a coma or the womb when Clinton was impeached, right? Maybe you were part of a covert NASA program that was landing people on Pluto in the late '90's?

The February 1999 broadcast of the interview of Juanita Broaderick and Connie Chung started out with the statement that it had been taped severl months earlier. And it was pretty damn clear watching the interview that there was no way the liberals running the show could have let that bomb out before the Senate sold the country out and acquited Clinton.

Want a source? Go find the interview and watch it.

one had to dig to discover that Hooker Chemical didn't want to sell the property

Maybe they didn't. But that does not excuse years of pumping that shit into the ground. This was the big story, not that some idiots in the community did not fully realize the extent of the pollution when they built homes and a school there.

Welcome to the real world. All relevant people in the early 20th Century considered pit burial of toxic chemicals and acceptable disposition. You're incorrectly applying modern hoity-toity environmental attitudes upon a culture that didn't reflect them at all.

Also, since you seem to be ignorant of the subject, the junk wasn't "pumped" into the ground. Love Canal was an aborted ditch dug by a guy named Love to feed water to a proposed hydroelectric plant. Hooker Chemical bought it after determing that it was suitable for long term storage of toxic chemical waste. The trench was then lined with several feet of impermeable clay, after which steel drums were properly laid in place, in rows, and after a row was completed, that row was invidually covered with more clay and thus isolated from neighboring rows, so a leak in one segment wouldn't result in a release of chemicals throughout the containment. After the dump was fully occupied, the entire area was covered with yet several more feet of impermeable clay and then covered with topsoil.

Left alone, the site would have been secure for ages. Due to the imminent abuse of eminent domain by government hacks, Hooker Chemical company sold the site for a dollar, so it could ensure that a very scary warning about the potential for human injury and death if the containment was breached. The school board sold the land to developers, who drove a major sewage pipe through the containment, creating a major breach on both sides.

If the government hadn't interfered, the poison would have stayed put, and then if it had been desired to transport the toxic waste to another site away from people at a later time, it could have been moved using due care, and no one would have been poisoned or killed.

All deaths, all injuries at Love Canal were due solely to the ignorance and arrogance and greed of government officials.

Oh, so when the media was busy covering up for the Clinton's they were doing it because the evil Republicans had control of the House and Senate? Even though it was obvious to any honest person that it was indeed the Clintons that were the criminals?

This argument always slays me. For months and months on end, all CNN and NBC and CBS and the other evil 'liberal' media outlets talked about was the Monica Lewikinski, Kenneth Star mess. You could not turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without being saturated in this crap.

Yeah, I was alive then. They were doing their best to focus on his sexual proclivities instead of his crimes, and then making sure that everyone knew that no one should be persecuted just because they got a little oral not-sex once in a while. After all, looking at Hillary no one would blame Clinton for getting a younger fat bitch to service him.

The media didn't focus on his crimes, though. Wonder why that was? Because if they discussed perjury as lying under oath, which is what it is, fewer people would have been sympathetic to the most corrupt president in US history. (Don't think so? Name another US president that sold out to a foreign power for campaign cash.)

And they covered all these so called 'scandals' with equal ferocity: white water, the stamp office thing, the various and sundry floozies, the Vincent Foster suicide.

They did? Where was the media outcry that should have happened when the Clinton's insisted the Park Police investigate a clear case of tampering with a dead body? No one attached to this planet thinks Foster killed himself in that park. But that's the official story. Where was the media demand for a real investigation, or it's outrage at the blatant coverup? There weren't none.

The House stamp franking fraud wasn't a Clinton issue, it was Democrats Have Been in Control of the House Too Long issue. Dan Rottenkowski was kicked out of office by the voters and the Democrats lost the House in part because of that.

Yeah, all those scandals, and the media never, NEVER asked for a head. Reno was allowed to slaughter 83 Americans with tanks, CS gas, teargas, bullets, and fire. She was still around leading the coverup for Clinton in 2000.

And after millions and millions of dollars spent by the special prosecutor, what did they have at the end? Not a damn thing.

The only thing they discovered was that Clinton was screwing around. And we already knew that.

They discovered that he committed a felony in office, and we discovered that the Senate is so corrupt they couldn't even be bothered to examine the evidence at hand before voting to dispense with the whole matter and getting back to their golf games and we discovered that the media is only interested in unseating Republican presidents. Not that we didn't already know this, but it was a good confirmation.

The media during the Clinton era was ruthless and blasted him continuously, ever chance they got.

So...Nixon was pilloried for having one (1) FBI confidential personnel dossier in his possession. The Red Queen had access to over 1100. No outcry from the majority of the leftist paper, the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Washington Post, ect. The broadcast media didn't touch it.

The Red Queen deliberately used the IRS to trump up false allegations of corruption in the White House Travel Office to give her pals the Bloodworth-Thomases a prize for helping the Clintons get elected. The leftist media didn't care. You clearly don't. You think the media was ruthless...I'm wondering how the media let that one get away. That should have been, in and of itself, sufficient cause for impeachment, and certainly it should have been a major issue in the 1996 campaign.

Al Gore's Lipton Tea Excuse, an invention of his used to explain how he wasn't aware that the Buddhist monks he went to Los Angeles to collect money from had both a vow of poverty and were nothing but an illegal funnel for funds from others. The media didn't bury him in scorn, as it would have to any Republican that tried anything so laughable.

People who see it otherwise are seeing what they want to see.

No, people who can't see what's happening are practicing selevity in their viewing. Since I'm not a member of either of the majority leftist parties, I don't share your blindness. You may not be a Democrat, but your myopia is evident nonetheless.

As for Reagan, I will certainly point out that he came after Carter, who'd let the military preparedness of this country slip, and that had to be corrected.

The military was already in bad disrepair due to the Vietnam War, well before Carter took office. It was the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR and the failed rescue attempt of the hostages that brought this to light. Carter flipped his position on defense spending after this and initiated the build up that continued through the Regan years.


Actually, the military was in fine shape during the war. You're right. Carter flipped his position in the last year of his term because his earlier policies were a disaster, he was going to lose the election because the military hated him, and in October 1980 all enlisted men in the militiary recieved a 12% raise. Of course, it was no coincidence that the election was a scant month away, and raises before then were not much more than a tenth of that. He was trying to buy loyalty from men who hated him. This comes from my own personal experience. I remember that raise. It was a month early, it was comparatively huge, and it was damn clear what it was for.

And...of course...the Democrats, after the Cold War was won, (and the lefties hate it when we claim we won the Cold War), they tried to shift the credit away from the man who won it onto the shoulders of the man who did most to almost lose it. That's a standard tactic. Carter was possibly one of the biggest idiots we've ever had in the White House, but that is a neck-and-neck contest with Gerry Ford.

[wonder cow]

You were in a coma or the womb when Clinton was impeached, right? Maybe you were part of a covert NASA program that was landing people on Pluto in the late '90's?

The February 1999 broadcast of the interview of Juanita Broaderick and Connie Chung started out with the statement that it had been taped severl months earlier. And it was pretty damn clear watching the interview that there was no way the liberals running the show could have let that bomb out before the Senate sold the country out and acquited Clinton.

Want a source? Go find the interview and watch it.

You offered it as evidence. You provide the source. If it exists at all. And what I'm asking is what was the reason NBC gave for sitting on the interview, which you didn't answer.

Also, since you seem to be ignorant of the subject, the junk wasn't "pumped" into the ground. Love Canal was an aborted ditch dug by a guy named Love to feed water to a proposed hydroelectric plant. Hooker Chemical bought it after determing that it was suitable for long term storage of toxic chemical waste. The trench was then lined with several feet of impermeable clay, after which steel drums were properly laid in place, in rows, and after a row was completed, that row was invidually covered with more clay and thus isolated from neighboring rows, so a leak in one segment wouldn't result in a release of chemicals throughout the containment. After the dump was fully occupied, the entire area was covered with yet several more feet of impermeable clay and then covered with topsoil.

A fair summation is that it was pumped into the ground.

impermeable clay

obviously not too impermeable

Due to the imminent abuse of eminent domain by government hacks

No fan of imminent domain abuse myself.

They were doing their best to focus on his sexual proclivities instead of his crimes

Crimes? You mean the lone possible charge of lying to a grand jury? Was he ever charged?

And frankly, his often lampooned and absurd sounding argument concerning the meaning of the word 'is' is technically sound.

However, what do I give a shit? I think he should have resigned in disgrace after he carried on an affair with a 21 year old intern.

But how can you deny the extremely negative press that he got continuously throughout his presidency?

It amazes me.

They did? Where was the media outcry that should have happened when the Clinton's insisted the Park Police investigate a clear case of tampering with a dead body? No one attached to this planet thinks Foster killed himself in that park. But that's the official story. Where was the media demand for a real investigation, or it's outrage at the blatant coverup? There weren't none.

That Jerry Falwell nonsense has been discredited many times over. I don't care to rehash it.

So...Nixon was pilloried for having one (1) FBI confidential personnel dossier in his possession. The Red Queen had access to over 1100. No outcry from the majority of the leftist paper, the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Washington Post, ect. The broadcast media didn't touch it.

The Red Queen deliberately used the IRS to trump up false allegations of corruption in the White House Travel Office to give her pals the Bloodworth-Thomases a prize for helping the Clintons get elected. The leftist media didn't care. You clearly don't. You think the media was ruthless...I'm wondering how the media let that one get away. That should have been, in and of itself, sufficient cause for impeachment, and certainly it should have been a major issue in the 1996 campaign.

Al Gore's Lipton Tea Excuse, an invention of his used to explain how he wasn't aware that the Buddhist monks he went to Los Angeles to collect money from had both a vow of poverty and were nothing but an illegal funnel for funds from others. The media didn't bury him in scorn, as it would have to any Republican that tried anything so laughable.[/qoute]

Yet I recall the story running for weeks on all the usual suspect stations. By the way, Star looked into all of this and came up with Zilch. Nothing. How is that possible? How is it possible that Clinton got away with all this stuff, that is so obvious to a lay person like yourself, yet one of the top prosecutors in the country hell bent on nailing him, with virtually an unlimited budget, and dozens of investigators and lawyers working the case, was unable to pin anything on him, save the possibility of one perjury charge?

[quote]You may not be a Democrat, but your myopia is evident nonetheless.

I speak only the unadulterated, objective truth. Deal son.

Actually, the military was in fine shape during the war. You're right. Carter flipped his position in the last year of his term because his earlier policies were a disaster, he was going to lose the election because the military hated him, and in October 1980 all enlisted men in the militiary recieved a 12% raise. Of course, it was no coincidence that the election was a scant month away, and raises before then were not much more than a tenth of that. He was trying to buy loyalty from men who hated him. This comes from my own personal experience. I remember that raise. It was a month early, it was comparatively huge, and it was damn clear what it was for.

And...of course...the Democrats, after the Cold War was won, (and the lefties hate it when we claim we won the Cold War), they tried to shift the credit away from the man who won it onto the shoulders of the man who did most to almost lose it. That's a standard tactic. Carter was possibly one of the biggest idiots we've ever had in the White House, but that is a neck-and-neck contest with Gerry Ford.

To surmise what you just said:

(1) Regan and the republicans won the cold war.

False. It was a joint effort spanning several decades and many presidents/ congresses.

(2) Carter almost lost it.

In what way? The USSR greatly aided their own demise with the invasion of Afghan, and yes I realize some try to argue thatÂ*Â*BrzezinskiÂ*Â*enticed the USSR to enter Afghan, but I don't buy that argument since the USSR had been piddling around in Afghan for years before this. But I fail to see how Carter 'almost lost' the cold war.

(3) Jimmy Carter and Gerry Ford are idiots

I disagree on both points. I find both men to be intelligent and reasonable. Carter's greatest weakness as an administrator was the inability to properly delegate responsibility. I'm not as familiar with Ford, although I'm aware of how he is perceived.

[Nathan Brazil]

You offered it as evidence. You provide the source. If it exists at all. And what I'm asking is what was the reason NBC gave for sitting on the interview, which you didn't answer.

I gave you the reason for NBC's lapdance. Don't beleive me? Prove otherwise.

A fair summation is that it was pumped into the ground.

Only if you're ignorant and sloppy. I decribed the reality. You do have the freedom to continue demonstrating ignorance after you've been corrected, though.

impermeable clay

obviously not too impermeable

Well, no. Once the clay was dug up by backhoes and bulldozers, and replaced with plain dirt, it probably wasn't all that impermeable any more. :rolleyes:



Due to the imminent abuse of eminent domain by government hacks

No fan of imminent domain abuse myself.

EMINENT domain.

They were doing their best to focus on his sexual proclivities instead of his crimes

Crimes? You mean the lone possible charge of lying to a grand jury? Was he ever charged?

Not only was he charged, he pled nolo contendre and paid a $90,000 fine, and was disbarred.

But that was just on the charge they had enough evidence to prosecute him for. He had several rapes on his past, not to mention his affiliation with the Arkansas mafia. His own state coined the term "Slick Willy", for Pete's sake!

And frankly, his often lampooned and absurd sounding argument concerning the meaning of the word 'is' is technically sound.

Yeah, he should have been disbarred just for that one alone, or possibly shot.

However, what do I give a shit? I think he should have resigned in disgrace after he carried on an affair with a 21 year old intern.

But how can you deny the extremely negative press that he got continuously throughout his presidency?

Because it wasn't enough, it tended to mention the scandal du jour, and then dropped it. It was clear there was a strong conspiracy of silence protecting the most corrupt president in history.

GW Bush (the first loser) had to defend for years the totally absurd notion of the "October Surprise", ie that he made a deal with the Ayatollah to hold the hostages, and that was why the Great Idiot lost in 1980. The media never dropped this. If the media had covered the REAL Clinton corruption the way they covered the phony allegations against Republicans, Clinton would have lost in 1996, and possibly we could have been saved September 11th, 2001.

They did? Where was the media outcry that should have happened when the Clinton's insisted the Park Police investigate a clear case of tampering with a dead body? No one attached to this planet thinks Foster killed himself in that park. But that's the official story. Where was the media demand for a real investigation, or it's outrage at the blatant coverup? There weren't none.

That Jerry Falwell nonsense has been discredited many times over. I don't care to rehash it.

I'm sorry. I have no clue what Falwell has to do with this. Foster simply did not die in that park. He could not have died there. It was staged placement of such amatuerish quality that not even Hollywood would let it in a film.

No bullet found...ergo, not evidence that the gun found was the gun used to kill him.

Not enough blood.

It's quite the unusual suicide that picks a very obscure park in a new city to blow his brains out in. Most unusual.

The bogus torn up suicide note blaming his action on the right-wing press...absent a piece, curiously, the piece with the signature. Very selective mice in his office, I must say.

And its a very unusual friend that lets the amatuers in the Park Police investigate the suspicious when there's a really handy FBI office right there that would do a better job...not to mention that the dead guy was a key advisor to not only the President, but his wife, too.

Only a sap thinks Foster committed suicide in that park.

So...Nixon was pilloried for having one (1) FBI confidential personnel dossier in his possession. The Red Queen had access to over 1100. No outcry from the majority of the leftist paper, the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Washington Post, ect. The broadcast media didn't touch it.

The Red Queen deliberately used the IRS to trump up false allegations of corruption in the White House Travel Office to give her pals the Bloodworth-Thomases a prize for helping the Clintons get elected. The leftist media didn't care. You clearly don't. You think the media was ruthless...I'm wondering how the media let that one get away. That should have been, in and of itself, sufficient cause for impeachment, and certainly it should have been a major issue in the 1996 campaign.

Al Gore's Lipton Tea Excuse, an invention of his used to explain how he wasn't aware that the Buddhist monks he went to Los Angeles to collect money from had both a vow of poverty and were nothing but an illegal funnel for funds from others. The media didn't bury him in scorn, as it would have to any Republican that tried anything so laughable.[/qoute]

Yet I recall the story running for weeks on all the usual suspect stations. By the way, Star looked into all of this and came up with Zilch. Nothing. How is that possible? How is it possible that Clinton got away with all this stuff, that is so obvious to a lay person like yourself, yet one of the top prosecutors in the country hell bent on nailing him, with virtually an unlimited budget, and dozens of investigators and lawyers working the case, was unable to pin anything on him, save the possibility of one perjury charge?

[quote]You may not be a Democrat, but your myopia is evident nonetheless.

I speak only the unadulterated, objective truth. Deal son.

No. That's clearly not true.

Actually, the military was in fine shape during the war. You're right. Carter flipped his position in the last year of his term because his earlier policies were a disaster, he was going to lose the election because the military hated him, and in October 1980 all enlisted men in the militiary recieved a 12% raise. Of course, it was no coincidence that the election was a scant month away, and raises before then were not much more than a tenth of that. He was trying to buy loyalty from men who hated him. This comes from my own personal experience. I remember that raise. It was a month early, it was comparatively huge, and it was damn clear what it was for.

And...of course...the Democrats, after the Cold War was won, (and the lefties hate it when we claim we won the Cold War), they tried to shift the credit away from the man who won it onto the shoulders of the man who did most to almost lose it. That's a standard tactic. Carter was possibly one of the biggest idiots we've ever had in the White House, but that is a neck-and-neck contest with Gerry Ford.

To surmise what you just said:

(1) Regan and the republicans won the cold war.

False. It was a joint effort spanning several decades and many presidents/ congresses.

Nope. I said Reagan, you extended it to Republicans. Of course, the Republicans didn't have Red Dellums in their party. You know, the Communist Democrat from San Francisco. That's one example.

State the Reagan Doctrine. Explain how it differs from the efforts of preceeding presidents.

(2) Carter almost lost it.

In what way? The USSR greatly aided their own demise with the invasion of Afghan, and yes I realize some try to argue thatÂ*Â*BrzezinskiÂ*Â*enticed the USSR to enter Afghan, but I don't buy that argument since the USSR had been piddling around in Afghan for years before this. But I fail to see how Carter 'almost lost' the cold war.

He lets the military waste away to the point where the US couldn't fly a squadron of helicopters across a desert. (Part of that incident was the realization by the pilots on the mission that if they crossed into Iran and had problems they'd be abandoned by the high command, so they didn't push very hard.)

He establishes an internation image of the United States as a ineffectual indecisive timid pansy, an image still found in organizations like al Quada and the DNC.

The idiot is still out there in the big world undermining US interests. It'll be a grand day when he hits his thumb with a hammer, gets an infection, and dies. He's been truly pestilential.

(3) Jimmy Carter and Gerry Ford are idiots

I disagree on both points. I find both men to be intelligent and reasonable. Carter's greatest weakness as an administrator was the inability to properly delegate responsibility. I'm not as familiar with Ford, although I'm aware of how he is perceived.

Gerry Ford with his WIN buttons presented "reasonable" response to the economic post-war problems and the oil embargo?

Carter's "killer rabbit" marks him as "intelligent"? His open response to the invasion of Afghanland was to boycott the Olymics and halt Aerofloty flights into the US. That was amazingly effective. His response to the economic problems in his time was to label them a "malaise" and then to say there's nothing to be done.

Yeah, getting Ford and then Carter almost wrecked this country. Four more years of Carter would have been a nightmare.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Jimmy Carter was the beginning of the downfall and soon to be death of the Democratic Party.
2. That peanut farmer was the worst President, on par with Clinton, who put the Death Nail in the Democrat's Party's Coffin.
3. This slow death is all we are seeing now.
4. It may continue to die off from the next twenty years.
5. But it will die off.
5. There is no doubt.
6. Look who they have to choose from for their next candidate.
7. It hurts me to list them, but its what I do.
8. Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Hilary, Biden, Reid, Gore, and others.
9. All would be easy to defeat.
10. All have mental problems, I don't care to get in to, or expose.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[wonder cow]

I gave you the reason for NBC's lapdance. Don't beleive me? Prove otherwise.

You made a claim and then offered no evidence to back up your assumption, just that NBC sat on a story, and ghee, that automatically proves bias.

Only if you're ignorant and sloppy. I decribed the reality. You do have the freedom to continue demonstrating ignorance

My freedom knows no bounds. But we have diverged greatly from the original point you were trying to make, that is that the coverage of this story was somehow influenced by a liberal bias.

You only offer anecdotal evidence and your own personal interpretation of how this coverage was 'liberal'.

EMINENT domain.

Damn it! Cut and paste kicks me in the ass again.

I'm sorry. I have no clue what Falwell has to do with this.

I will be more than happy to tell you. Your conspiracy theory ideas concerning the Vincent Foster suicide are not original. In fact they originated with Mr. Falwell and his crack wads. You see, it was probably filterd down to you via Rush Bimbo or Sean Hannity or any of a 100 other prominent Clinton haters. Hate the game, not the player.

State the Reagan Doctrine. Explain how it differs from the efforts of preceeding presidents.

What is this, a quiz?

By your same “Regan saved the world� logic, FDR won WW2.

He lets the military waste away to the point where the US couldn't fly a squadron of helicopters across a desert.

And he did that in just a couple of years. Wow, he worked fast.

Defense spending naturally fluctuates over time, depending on need. It was a reasonable, but ultimately incorrect policy decision to cut military spending after Vietnam. Carter had a lofty and ridiculous goal to balance the budget. ……. [wonder cow laughs uproariously :D]

He establishes an internation image of the United States as a ineffectual indecisive timid pansy, an image still found in organizations like al Quada and the DNC.

False. There wasn’t much more Carter could have done to hurt our image regarding military might in the eyes of those who hate us, because those who hated us already considered both Vietnam and Korea to be US defeats.

The idiot is still out there in the big world undermining US interests.

I disagree. His reputation throughout the world is very good and his positions seem to be much more beneficial to US interests than those advocated by the gutless 'bring it on' 5 deferment chicken hawks of the current administration.

Gerry Ford with his WIN buttons presented "reasonable" response to the economic post-war problems and the oil embargo?

Like I said, I can't really speak much to Gerry Ford or his ability to deal with the issues that you have picked out as failures; although I'm certain in his lifelong career in government he had some successes.

My opinion of him as intelligent and reasonable is based on a handful of interviews.

His open response to the invasion of Afghanland was to boycott the Olymics and halt Aerofloty flights into the US.

The Carter administration had already been secretly supporting anti-soviet factions in Afghan. After the invasion in Dec 79Â*Â*he axed the Nixon grain deal with USSR. And he also reinstated draft registration and accepted Brzezinski's recommendation on additional covert programs that helped fund the Mujahideen rebels to the tune of about 40 billion.

[Newscaster]

I hate to say this but it has become obvious that Chesswarsnow is a graduate of Texas Maven University with a degree in Know-It-All-ology.

Amazing! :P:rolleyes::shy::(

[Nathan Brazil]

I'm sorry. I have no clue what Falwell has to do with this.

I will be more than happy to tell you. Your conspiracy theory ideas concerning the Vincent Foster suicide are not original. In fact they originated with Mr. Falwell and his crack wads. You see, it was probably filterd down to you via Rush Bimbo or Sean Hannity or any of a 100 other prominent Clinton haters. Hate the game, not the player.

In other words, you can't refute what I said. Fact of the matter is, no intelligent and honest person (note the use of the word "and") accepts the official tale. Like I said, it's clear the body didn't die where it was found.

State the Reagan Doctrine. Explain how it differs from the efforts of preceeding presidents.

What is this, a quiz?

I see you didn't state what the Reagan Doctrine was.

The Reagan Doctrine stated that it wasn't enough to "contain" communism, as all preceding presidents did, it was necessary, both morally and strategically, to actively work to free countries enslaved by the Reds.

Thus the battle over Nicaraqua, the Honduras, Afghanistan, and Grenada.

The Reagan Doctrine worked. The other presidents failed.

By your same “Regan saved the world� logic, FDR won WW2.

FDR certainly helped. The US won the war against Japan, the US was a major contributor to the victory against Germany, both in the military fronts on the West and in supplying the materiel to the Soviets in support of their not-to-be discounted efforts on the East.

He lets the military waste away to the point where the US couldn't fly a squadron of helicopters across a desert.

And he did that in just a couple of years. Wow, he worked fast.

Yeah, incredible, isn't it? That's what happens when surrender monkeys own both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, too.

False. There wasn’t much more Carter could have done to hurt our image regarding military might in the eyes of those who hate us, because those who hated us already considered both Vietnam and Korea to be US defeats.

No wonder. The Democrats ran away from a solid victory in Vietnam...a suitable subject for this thread since it was the leftist propaganda in the media that labeled the rollback of the Tet Offensive a loss instead of a major victory for US forces, and then continued to harp upon that in a very successful effort to turn US public opinion against the war. The Democrats were all too eager to stab US troops in the back on that one.

Democrats haven't changed since the days of Jeff Davis, have they?

I disagree. [Carter's] reputation throughout the world is very good and his positions seem to be much more beneficial to US interests than those advocated by the gutless 'bring it on' 5 deferment chicken hawks of the current administration.

Yeah, HIS reputation as a turncoat willing to stab the US in the back is solid. He hasn't helped the US any.

[quote]Gerry Ford with his WIN buttons presented "reasonable" response to the economic post-war problems and the oil embargo?

Like I said, I can't really speak much to Gerry Ford or his ability to deal with the issues that you have picked out as failures; although I'm certain in his lifelong career in government he had some successes.

Yeah, there's no rule against stupid and ineffective people can't get all the way to the top.

My opinion of him as intelligent and reasonable is based on a handful of interviews.

My opinion of him is based on managing to surive his presidency.

His open response to the invasion of Afghanland was to boycott the Olymics and halt Aerofloty flights into the US.

The Carter administration had already been secretly supporting anti-soviet factions in Afghan. After the invasion in Dec 79Â*Â*he axed the Nixon grain deal with USSR. And he also reinstated draft registration and accepted Brzezinski's recommendation on additional covert programs that helped fund the Mujahideen rebels to the tune of about 40 billion.


Ah, he re-instated draft registration. That really scared the Russians, didn't it? Gee, it only took another ten years, endless effort to stymie surrender monkey (Democrat) effortsto abandon the Afghan patriots, and thousands of lives to get the commies out of Afghanland. Carter was such a successful president, after all.

Fact of the matter was, Carter was so inept with the Iranian hostage situation that the US had no international influence in regards to Afghanistan. What were we going to do, lose some more helicopters in Pakistan? Because of Carter no one took the US seriously anymore. Reagan reversed that. There was never a bigger loser in the White House than Carter.

[wonder cow]

In other words, you can't refute what I said.

No need for me to refute it. It has been thoroughly refuted many times over. If you would like to hold onto ridiculous conspiracy theories, go right ahead. You believe it for no other reason than you want to, due to your dislike of Clinton, and will ignore any and all common sense explanations that contradict this idiotic idea. So enjoy.

I see you didn't state what the Reagan Doctrine was.

I have been out of school a good many years. Who are you to give me a quiz? If you wanted to discuss the Regan "doctrine", I would have been happy to do so. But you were being patronizing.

I realize that many of these DB's are full of snot nose kids, but I'm not one.

FDR certainly helped.

I agree. And he's leadership during difficult times greatly advanced our nation as a super power. However, he did not win WW2 by himself, nor did Regan win the cold war by himself.

Yeah, incredible, isn't it? That's what happens when surrender monkeys own both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, too.

Surrender of what? When Carter entered office, we were not at war. Your statement makes no sense.

Yeah, there's no rule against stupid and ineffective people can't get all the way to the top

And no rule exists that an intelligent person can't get all the way to the top and then experience failures.

You dislike both of these individuals, so you say such things. What's the point, really? Meaningless.

Ah, he re-instated draft registration.

Ah, you ignored the Mujahideen funding and the other statements because you are so eager to disparage Carter and reinforce your own views.

Carter was so inept with the Iranian hostage

The Iranian hostage situation would have happened to anyone who was President at the time.

So what do you do in that situation? Bomb Iran and prompt the religious nuts holding the hostages to kill them?

[BoogyMan]

Real media should always be slightly tilted to the left. Because of the nature of the beast, 'media' protects itself by staying to the left.

In fact, mainstream media news of the last 20 years is slightly to the right of center, which I realize runs afoul of popular myth.

The appearance of a leftist slant among most journalists today is not because they have moved more to the left, but rather because the rest of the majority of the country has moved much more to the right, post Regan and especially post Clinton's conservative, surrendering, sell out of a presidency.

No Cow media lies to the public and provides unregulated campaign support for left-wing candidates when it stays left.Â*Â*I always love it when moonbats scream abou the media being right of center, it is the equivalent of someone burning their sheeps clothing off and revealing the wolf beneath.

You mean FOX “news�. When your regular “news� anchors do ad-hoc commentary, what you have yourself is a joke of a network that panders to a very narrow demographic of overly macho-mentaled* individuals who also think professional wrestling is "real".

FOX “news� is, in essence, the professional wrestling of journalism.

* my word


Egads, we cannot have anchors who can actually form a thought outside of the teleprompter, oh the horror.Â*Â*You should be watching CNN or MSNBC where the anchors just read what the DNC tells them to read.

[Nathan Brazil]

In other words, you can't refute what I said.

No need for me to refute it.

That's another way of saying you can't.

I see you didn't state what the Reagan Doctrine was.

I have been out of school a good many years. Who are you to give me a quiz? If you wanted to discuss the Regan "doctrine", I would have been happy to do so. But you were being patronizing.

I realize that many of these DB's are full of snot nose kids, but I'm not one.

So you're old enough to know what Kleenex is for, but not so old someone else changes your diapers. What's that got to do with Reagan? You can hardly discuss the effectiveness of Reagan's policies when you can't state what they are.

Looks to me like you brought your pee shooter to a knife fight.

FDR certainly helped.

I agree. And he's leadership during difficult times greatly advanced our nation as a super power. However, he did not win WW2 by himself, nor did Regan win the cold war by himself.

Without US material support, it's doubtful that either Britain or the Soviet Union could have stood against Hitler.

Yeah, incredible, isn't it? That's what happens when surrender monkeys own both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, too.

Surrender of what? When Carter entered office, we were not at war. Your statement makes no sense.

Oh...so you're admitting that Carter wasn't fighting the Cold War and thus conceding the point that Reagan did indeed win it. Thank you.

Yeah, there's no rule against stupid and ineffective people can't get all the way to the top

And no rule exists that an intelligent person can't get all the way to the top and then experience failures.

That's true enough. Carter wasn't one of those, though. He's still an idiot. It's a congenital condition brought about by the mating of two Democrats.

You dislike both of these individuals, so you say such things. What's the point, really? Meaningless.

Ah, he re-instated draft registration.

Ah, you ignored the Mujahideen funding and the other statements because you are so eager to disparage Carter and reinforce your own views.

Did I really ignore the funding of the Afghan freedom fighters, or did I point out that the Reagan administration had to fight every year to maintain their funding in the face of hostile surrender monkey cuts?

Yes, I addressed that point. If the surrender monkeys hadn't been so eager to undermine Reagan's Doctrine, the farce called "Iran-Contra" would not have ever become an issue.

Carter was so inept with the Iranian hostage

The Iranian hostage situation would have happened to anyone who was President at the time.

Not to me. I understand the value of a squadron of B-52 bombers and how I don't need a city called "Tehran". The "hostages" are written of as causalties of war, and the enemy writes off electricity, hospitals, running water, working sewer systems, farms, roofs, and safety.

The first day after our embassy was attacked - that's an act of war, by the way - a squadron of B52's would have dropped cement dummy bombs all over Tehran with "You fucked up boy" written all over them in farsi.

I do believe in subtlety, after all.

The next day the bombs would be real.