All the Rage (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0314-27.htm)
There's no denying it, we progressives are angry

by Paul Waldman

We can’t deny it any longer. There’s no point in hiding it, no point in trying to explain it away. Yes, it’s true: We progressives are angry. And we no longer care if the centrist, moderate guardians of the establishment scold us for it.

Our anger is not just some vague feeling whose source we can’t put our finger on. It isn’t based on absurd conspiracy theories and it isn’t illogical.

We’re angry because of what has happened to our country, because of how we’ve been treated, and because of the innumerable crimes the conservatives have committed. We’re angry at the president, we’re angry at the Congress, we’re angry at the news media. And we have every right to be.

Yes, we’re angry at George W. Bush. We’re not angry at him because of who he sleeps with, and we’re not angry at him because we think he represents some socio-cultural movement we didn’t like 40 years ago, or because he hung out with a different crowd than we did in high school. We’re angry at him because of what he’s done.

It’s true, we don’t like the fact that the most powerful human being on the planet is such a ridiculous buffoon that he can’t put two coherent sentences together without beginning to giggle and shimmy his shoulders. But we’re not angry because we think he’s stupid, we’re angry because he treats us as though we’re stupid. We’re angry that he lied to us, and lied to us and lied to us again. We’re angry that when he lies to us it isn’t because he’s caught up in scandal or got caught doing something he shouldn’t have, it’s part of a carefully constructed plan to fool the public.

Yes, we’re angry about Iraq, and we may be for the rest of our lives. We get angry every day when we open our newspapers and see the photo of another young soldier who died for this, another one maimed for life, another one with a tormented and broken soul. We’re angry about the couple of trillion dollars this war will cost. We’re angry about the thousands of young men around the world have been driven into the arms of al Qaeda, who have decided to devote their lives to killing Americans because of this war. We’re angry about the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who have died in the orgy of bloodshed we unleashed, and the living too, those whom we said we were coming to “liberate,” but who now find themselves in a suffocating, endless miasma of fear and misery and death.

We’re angry that when we talk about ending this monstrous war, the soulless hypocrites who are glad to send more and more men and women to be scarred and maimed and killed in Iraq have the gall to accuse us of not “supporting the troops.” We’re angry that people whose actions exhibit nothing but contempt for freedom and liberty and justice, who wouldn’t know real patriotism if it came up and smacked them across the face, pin a little flag on their lapel and say that we’re the ones who hate America.

We’re angry because people who said the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, who said Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were good buddies, who said this nightmare of a war would bring a flowering of democracy across the Middle East—this band of idiots, the Kristols and the Krauthammers and the Kagans and the Kondrackes, is treated as “serious” and “credible” on matters of national security, while those of us who were right about the war are dismissed as some sort of fringe whose ideas are too silly to listen to.

We’re angry that America may now be the only country in the world in which torture is an officially sanctioned policy, proclaimed proudly in public. We’re angry that in our name prisoners are subjected to sleep deprivation, water boarding and other forms of psychological torture to the point where they are literally driven mad. We’re angry that the president has decided, over 750 times, that if Congress passes a law and he doesn’t like it, he’ll just ignore it. We’re angry that this administration has argued over and over, in public and in court, that if the president does it, it’s not illegal. We’re angry that they tell us we have to shred our freedoms in order to be safe, and that so many of our fellow citizens shrug their shoulders and think it’s no big deal.

And we’re angry that Bush has made our nation so hated around the world. We’re angry that the next time a Democrat gets elected, most of their time will be spent cleaning up the god-awful mess Bush has made of everything.

We’re angry that we and our children and our grandchildren will have to keep paying off the nation’s debt, which now stands at nearly $9 trillion. We’re angry because every other industrialized country in the world has a single-payer health care system that works, and we pay more for ours than any of them, yet we have 45 million people with no health insurance. We’re angry that the insurance companies have convinced their obedient servants in Congress that the Rube Goldberg perpetual paperwork machine we have now is somehow “the best health care in the world” and preferable to a system in which you go to your doctor, get treated and go home, without having to fill out 10 forms and get down on your knees before the gods of the HMO bureaucracy to get a partial repayment minus your deductible and your co-pay.

We’re angry that the federal government is brimming with people fundamentally opposed to the mission of the agencies over which they preside, the anti-environmentalists who run the Interior department, the mining company lobbyists in charge of mine safety and the union-busters in charge of worker safety. We’re still angry about Hurricane Katrina, that our government left thousands of its citizens stranded to suffer and die, while the president thought that the guy presiding over the disastrous failure was doing a heckuva job. We’re angry that our government sends religious fundamentalists around the world to discourage condom use, thus condemning untold numbers of people to unwanted pregnancy, disease and death.

We’re angry that forty years after the Voting Rights Act, the Republican Party continues to exploit racism and do everything in its power to stop black people from voting in each and every election. We’re angry that in the richest country in the world we can’t seem to find our way to a system in which you go to the polls, cast your ballot and know that it will be counted. And yes, we’re still angry about what happened in Florida in 2000, that through lying and cheating and pure luck the Republicans were able to steal a presidential election, and five unprincipled partisans on the Supreme Court helped them do it. We’re angry that every time we look at Al Gore all that pain and frustration and outrage comes bubbling up through our guts no matter how hard we try to “get over it.”

We’re angry that some of the most powerful people in America see nothing wrong with getting down on their knees to kiss the rings of radical clerics espousing a theology as maniacal as any on earth. We’re angry that we have to endure lecture after lecture on “family values” from people who rush from their pulpits, whether in church or in Congress or on cable chat shows, to a motel room to give in to their desires and revel in their transgression before rushing back to those pulpits to wag a finger in all our faces with talk of sin. We’re angry that people whose souls are so twisted by hate and shame they make John Winthrop look like Wavy Gravy have the nerve to tell us how to live “moral” lives.

We’re angry that when some pompous fool who less than a decade ago demanded that Bill Clinton be impeached in order to demonstrate our fealty to the “rule of law” comes on television to explain how Scooter Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice mean nothing and he must immediately be pardoned, Wolf Blitzer doesn’t say, “Get out of this studio, you contemptible hypocrite, and don’t ever come back.”

We’re angry because a repellent ghoul like Ann Coulter can regularly advocate the murder of people with whom she has political differences, yet continue to get invited on the Today Show. We’re angry that journalists who ought to know better tut-tut progressive bloggers for using dirty words but don’t blink an eye when conservatives spew forth the most abominable hatred and calls for violence that one could imagine.

We’re angry that there is not a single show on cable news in which a progressive is given an hour to spout off his or her opinions, but that privilege is given to the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and John Gibson and Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and all the other two-bit electronic hucksters of phony aggrievement.

We’re angry because snake-oil salesmen like William Donohue— despite being an anti-Semitic homophobe —can issue a press release expressing patently phony outrage about something somebody said, and get the mainstream press to jump like trained dogs. We’re angry because a band of liars like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can hoodwink the media into doing their dirty work for them. We’re angry because every despicable Republican attack gets recycled as knowing, arched-eyebrow commentary by “mainstream” commentators.

Those are a few of the things we’re angry about, and yes, that’s a lot of anger. But you know what? There’s nothing wrong with being angry. Anger is the appropriate reaction to moral outrages, to crimes against our common humanity, to the actions of those who would turn our country into something twisted and ugly.

A minister was seated next to an U.S. Army Ranger Officer on a flight to Fort Benning, Georgia. After the plane was airborne, drink orders were taken. The Officer asked for a whiskey and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The flight attendant then asked the minister if he would like a drink.

He replied in disgust, "I'd rather be savagely raped by brazen whores than let liquor touch my lips."

The Officer then handed his drink back to the attendant and said, "Me too. I didn't know we had a choice."

I can't let this one go, though I should, dammit.

We can’t deny it any longer. There’s no point in hiding it, no point in trying to explain it away. Yes, it’s true: We progressives are angry. And we no longer care if the centrist, moderate guardians of the establishment scold us for it.

This is NEWS? "Progressives" angry? Hell, they've been pissed off since the 60s. Reagan sure as hell didn't help out. Then there was the fact that the Congress got taken away from them in '94, Clinton got hounded all through the 90s and Bush got the Whitehouse in 2000. "Progressives" have been angry for longer than I've been alive, dammit.


We’re angry that he lied to us, and lied to us and lied to us again. We’re angry that when he lies to us it isn’t because he’s caught up in scandal or got caught doing something he shouldn’t have, it’s part of a carefully constructed plan to fool the public.

Yes, and Bush "stole' the election and rigged voting machines. Bush didn't lie, every single Western intelligence agency believed that Saddam had WMDs, hell, "progressives" like Kerry and Hillary believed Saddam was a threat. Right up to the part where Bush got serious about ending Saddam that is, dammit.

We’re angry that when we talk about ending this monstrous war, the soulless hypocrites who are glad to send more and more men and women to be scarred and maimed and killed in Iraq have the gall to accuse us of not “supporting the troops.”

Keep in mind that it's the "progressives" who are the ones throwing the biggest fits whenever a military recruiter shows up at a high school or college. Progessives like Kerry went and told a pack full of lies to a Congressional committee about how our soldiers were doing all sorts of horrible atrocities in Vietnam. Then he went and did it again when he accused American soldiers of breaking into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and accosting the civilians. Hillary went and had the Marine Honor Guard serve canapes at one of her little parties when Bill had the Whitehouse. Murtha has cozied up to Code Pink who has called our soldiers "killers." Jane Fonda did a good will tour to Hanoi during the Vietnam war and called our servicment "war criminals." She has also showed up at a recent anti-Iraq war protest. "Progressives" don't like the military at all. Yet, we're supposed to believe that they care about our troops wounded and maimed in Iraq? Or is it that they're using our casualties to try and prove that America is failing in Iraq?

We’re angry that forty years after the Voting Rights Act, the Republican Party continues to exploit racism and do everything in its power to stop black people from voting in each and every election. We’re angry that in the richest country in the world we can’t seem to find our way to a system in which you go to the polls, cast your ballot and know that it will be counted.

Sorry "progressives" the bar got raised. High. In Afghanistan and in Iraq, people there were under threat of death by terrorists if they voted. And those "insurgents" have demonstrated that they WILL kill people. Yet, as a percentage, more Iraqis and Afghanis voted than Americans did in the 2000 and 2004 elections. And they did so several times. Not that it would've been hard for the "insurgents" to know who voted, because the voters had to dip their fingers in indelible ink to prevent voter fraud. Voters, especially in Afghanistan, not only had to WALK several miles to get to a polling station, they had to worry whether or not the guy next to him had several pounds of TNT strapped to him. Conditions here in the U.S. don't come CLOSE to the kind of difficulties the Iraqis and Afghanis had to face. Don't tell me about black people being stopped from voting, it's all a bunch of trash, dammit.


And yes, we’re still angry about what happened in Florida in 2000, that through lying and cheating and pure luck the Republicans were able to steal a presidential election, and five unprincipled partisans on the Supreme Court helped them do it.

PFFFFFFT. You "progressives" would be. Keep telling yourselves that the 2000 election was "stolen." Keep living in the dream world, dammit.

On a further note, you guys remember the run up to the '06 election and ALL the rumours that Republicans everywhere were rigging voting booths right left and center? Isn't it interesting that such accusations went quiet real quick once it was clear that the dems won?

We’re angry that we and our children and our grandchildren will have to keep paying off the nation’s debt, which now stands at nearly $9 trillion.

Yet have zero trouble adding on social program after social program giving away for free goods and services that should be paid for by the individual, dammit.

We’re angry because every other industrialized country in the world has a single-payer health care system that works, and we pay more for ours than any of them, yet we have 45 million people with no health insurance.

This is what happens when a government perk goes bad. Too long and sad of a history for me to detail here, but I'm sure I'll be doing so very soon, dammit.

We’re angry that there is not a single show on cable news in which a progressive is given an hour to spout off his or her opinions, but that privilege is given to the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and John Gibson and Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and all the other two-bit electronic hucksters of phony aggrievement.

Gee, what about Chris Mathews, Jon Stewart, James Carville, George Stephanopolous? What you "progressives" are angry about is that you can't get people to listen to your trash. Air America is an excellent illustration, dammit.

Those are a few of the things we’re angry about, and yes, that’s a lot of anger. But you know what? There’s nothing wrong with being angry. Anger is the appropriate reaction to moral outrages, to crimes against our common humanity, to the actions of those who would turn our country into something twisted and ugly.

I'm kinda worried about all these angry "progressives" driving down the road and seeing a small animal starting to cross...........

Dammit.

Gee, what about Chris Mathews,

What about him? Are you trying to claim he is a liberal? Pffft! Pullease. dammit.

Jon Stewart,

Not on cable news. dammit.

James Carville,

Also not on cable news. dammit.

George Stephanopolous?

Also not on Cable News. He is on Network News on sunday mornings only.
Woo, you found one guy who even comes close. Im so unimpressed. dammit.


What you "progressives" are angry about is that you can't get people to listen to your trash. Air America is an excellent illustration, dammit.

How is growing listenership a sign that they can't get people to listen?
just because you are too deep into the koolaid to bother listening doesn't mean everyone shares your affliction. dammit.

You are full of shit. dammit. :rolleyes:

:lolhit:

Liberals have so sullied themselves and their message that they have to invent new names for themselves.

No one's fooled (well, some are).

Keep in mind that it's the "progressives" who are the ones throwing the biggest fits whenever a military recruiter shows up at a high school or college. Progessives like Kerry went and told a pack full of lies to a Congressional committee about how our soldiers were doing all sorts of horrible atrocities in Vietnam. Then he went and did it again when he accused American soldiers of breaking into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and accosting the civilians. Hillary went and had the Marine Honor Guard serve canapes at one of her little parties when Bill had the Whitehouse. Murtha has cozied up to Code Pink who has called our soldiers "killers." Jane Fonda did a good will tour to Hanoi during the Vietnam war and called our servicment "war criminals." She has also showed up at a recent anti-Iraq war protest. "Progressives" don't like the military at all. Yet, we're supposed to believe that they care about our troops wounded and maimed in Iraq? Or is it that they're using our casualties to try and prove that America is failing in Iraq?
I notice that you left out Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, and Bob Kerrey. I guess the complete picture takes away from the "libruls hate the military" argument.

Sorry "progressives" the bar got raised. High. In Afghanistan and in Iraq, people there were under threat of death by terrorists if they voted. And those "insurgents" have demonstrated that they WILL kill people. Yet, as a percentage, more Iraqis and Afghanis voted than Americans did in the 2000 and 2004 elections. And they did so several times. Not that it would've been hard for the "insurgents" to know who voted, because the voters had to dip their fingers in indelible ink to prevent voter fraud. Voters, especially in Afghanistan, not only had to WALK several miles to get to a polling station, they had to worry whether or not the guy next to him had several pounds of TNT strapped to him. Conditions here in the U.S. don't come CLOSE to the kind of difficulties the Iraqis and Afghanis had to face. Don't tell me about black people being stopped from voting, it's all a bunch of trash, dammit.Since when are Iraq and Afghanistan the standards by which we judge conditions in our own country? Let me point out that terrorists aren't the only thing that prevent people from voting. We never had terrorists attacking our polling stations, and our voting conditions were never as bad as they are in Iraq. Yet, black people were continuously prevented from voting up until 1965. The situation in another country is completely irrelevant to the situation in our own.

PFFFFFFT. You "progressives" would be. Keep telling yourselves that the 2000 election was "stolen." Keep living in the dream world, dammit.I have no doubt that if the 2000 election had gone the other way you would hear liberals saying the same exact thing to conservatives. Such is the nature of partisanship.

Liberals and conservatives are both missing half the picture. Someday, hopefully, enough people will realize this, and take action against both, in order to correct the problems we do have. Because neither the Democrats or Republicans have proven themselves capable of doing so during the past 60 years.

Liberals and conservatives are both missing half the picture. Someday, hopefully, enough people will realize this, and take action against both.....
That leaves moderates who, almost by definition, will not take any significant action.

That leaves moderates who, almost by definition, will not take any significant action.

Why not? A "moderate" to me is someone who avoids extremes, and it farily often is the case that no action is an extreme.

I notice that you left out Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, and Bob Kerrey. I guess the complete picture takes away from the "libruls hate the military" argument.


I was in the marching band at Harvard; we would not march--it was too "military." We didn't even play Sousa. Now what good is a marching band without some Sousa?

My point is that the absurdity is real enough in America, even though you deny it.

I was in the marching band at Harvard; we would not march--it was too "military." We didn't even play Sousa. Now what good is a marching band without some Sousa?

My point is that the absurdity is real enough in America, even though you deny it.
Harvard is hardly a sample of the liberal population of America.

Liberals have so sullied themselves and their message that they have to invent new names for themselves.


You keep on believeing that bullshit if it makes you feel better about the failure of conservatism.

Harvard is hardly a sample of the liberal population of America.
it's a better sample than Oral Roberts University or West Point.

You keep on believeing that bullshit if it makes you feel better about the failure of conservatism.

failure of conservatism? talk about believing bullshit. conservatism will always beat liberalism because liberals couldnt survive without conservatives, but conservatives have done just fine without liberals.

failure of conservatism? ...conservatives have done just fine without liberals.

I have to agree with you on this, Trav. Conservatives have done just fine the last 12 years without liberal interference or assistance: they've done a fine job in supporting and expanding an illegal war, bringing unending scandal and dirision upon themselves, getting caught with their hands in lobbyist's pockets, acting as though the law and the Constitution simply don't exist (at least not when applied to them, anyway), and so on.

Too bad their non-liberal-overseen activities have come to an end. The shoe's on the other foot now, Trav. Get used to it.

you forgot fixing elections :rolleyes:

you forgot fixing elections :rolleyes:

Oh, so you believe they did that too, eh?

of course, how else would they win an election is a country so one sidedly liberal?

Why not? A "moderate" to me is someone who avoids extremes, and it farily often is the case that no action is an extreme.Go to the library and look for a book titled "Great American Moderates and Their Accomplishments"

Taking "no action" will change nothing.

You keep on believeing that bullshit if it makes you feel better about the failure of conservatism.At least we still call ourselves conservatives.
And if conservatism has failed, why do candidates from both parties pretend to be further to the right for an election than they actually are?

1. they've done a fine job in supporting and expanding an illegal war,
2. bringing unending scandal and dirision upon themselves,
3. getting caught with their hands in lobbyist's pockets,
4. acting as though the law and the Constitution simply don't exist
1. Like Kosovo?
2. Like Lewinsky, Travelgate, Whitewater, Cattle Futures and Pardons for sale?
3. Like Tyson Chicken and Loral?
4. Like lying under oath?

At least we still call ourselves conservatives.

Some people do, sure. Just like there have been and still are people who proudly call themselves liberal. If you are referring to the term progressive, it is just an alternate term that is used synonymously with liberal.

It became fashionable for Cons to call themselves "Neo-Cons" about 12 years ago. Republicans are currently running back to Conservative in droves because this Administration has been such an abject failure. Problem is that they have more in common with the neocons then they have differences.



And if conservatism has failed, why do candidates from both parties pretend to be further to the right for an election than they actually are?

I don't think they do. The corporate media just tries to portray that idea because it serves their adgenda.

Look at the new Democrats who won resoundingly, like John Testert or Jim Webb, they both campaigned on Liberal principles and were a huge success.

The corporate media liked to play up the idea that they were conservatives but those are not the traits they campaigned on or that won them any support.

1. Some people do, sure.
2. It became fashionable for Cons to call themselves "Neo-Cons" about 12 years ago.
3. I don't think they do. The corporate media just tries to portray that idea because it serves their adgenda.1. Some on our level, but the spokespeople on the news shows and the national level politicians rarely say liberal anymore. If it's synonymous why even invent the new phrase.

2. Firstly I don't think the conservatives use the phrase "neo-con". It's a perjorative.
But let's say you're right. It means new conservative. That's hardly running away from the original monniker.

3. Bill Clinton in 1996 and Hillary Clinton right now are the most salient examples. Do you think all the Democrats who are now retreating from their pro-war vote were truly pro-war when they cast it?
There are many examples of politicians pretending to be closer to this "failed" philosophy of conservatism.
If there are any examples of a politician pretending to be more liberal than he actually is, I can't think of it offhand.

1. Like Kosovo?

Are you trying to claim Kosovo was an "illegal war"?

2. Like Lewinsky, Travelgate, Whitewater, Cattle Futures and Pardons for sale?

The only real scandal you listed was "lewinsky". The rest were nothing.
As for Pardons for sale, we will all be watching to see how upset you get when Bush sells Libby a pardon for his silence. I am betting not at all, in typical hypocrite fashion.


3. Like Tyson Chicken and Loral?

No idea what either of those are supposed to mean but the Democrats have nothing on the Republican K-street project in terms of corruption.


4. Like lying under oath?

You only care about people doing that if they have a (d) after their name.
Otherwise you don't even want investigations to happen.

1. If it's synonymous why even invent the new phrase.

Marketing.

I don't think the conservatives use the phrase "neo-con".

NeoCons coined the term themselves.

That's hardly running away from the original monniker.

They obviously find enough fault with the old monniker that they felt the need to invent a new one.


Bill Clinton in 1996 and Hillary Clinton right now are the most salient examples.

1996 was over a decade ago. If you have to go that far back for an example that is just sad.

And Hillary is paying for her stubborness dearly.


Do you think all the Democrats who are now retreating from their pro-war vote were truly pro-war when they cast it?

Of course not. They were lied to about the level of threat that Iraq posed.
Thanks to Bush and his "fixed intelligence".


If there are any examples of a politician pretending to be more liberal than he actually is, I can't think of it offhand.

Thats because, unlike Conservatives, Liberals don't have to pretend.

There are plenty of examples of Conservatives pretending in order to pander to a crowd. Rudy Guliani for example, calling for government funded abortions in 1998.

[QUOTE=dharmabum]All the Rage (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0314-27.htm)
There's no denying it, we progressives are angry

by Paul Waldman

Yes,P.Waldo,you have it knocked.Got every little talking point
neatly choreographed thru verbage meant to influence those
not willfull or strong enouigh to comprehend simple truth.
9/11 was truth.The hub of American Society was toppled and
made example of.Calling our Pres a buffoon or incapable of
stringing 2 coherent sentences together { a Bill Maher tag line } is
about as constructive a comment as fit yer sickly lot.Y'all the
same little dweebs,who'd make fun of Winston Churchill's lisp,
if given the opportunity.
But,thankfully,that Generation had more to worry about than
mere guttural Progressive dissent.This is what happens,when a
Country has seen too mush peacetime and Freedom to make
culture shocks.Schocking behavior,as in the Porn revolution,and
now shock in Political dissent.
If ya wanna bee like France,with a really good high speed Monorail
syatem,and good Eats,than juts say so.
We now produce Wines { Pinot Noir & Merlot } that rival Frances best.
Our Cabernet & Chardonnay have been excellent for years.
But France can barely produce a car,has virtually NO functioning Army
and maybe a few new Jets.Their Socialist to the core.
That's what this article is about.
This Nouveau Chomsky Socialist Ideal,that presupposes laissez faire &
heralds in a World,entirely beholdin to The State,and it's limited
facility,to prosper like Capitalism.
It is far easier to corrupt the will of the masses thru hyperbole or
convoluted propaganda.Take a truth and stretch it beyond
the bounds of good faith and common sense.
Exactlly what Air America,Michael Moore and MoveOn.org have
tried with such ill-conceived candor.

how did you get over 1000 posts foolsworth? I have never ssen you on here before. Just asking.

At least we still call ourselves conservatives.
And if conservatism has failed, why do candidates from both parties pretend to be further to the right for an election than they actually are?

Why should a Rational person trust someone,as yerself,who
almost takes pride in cushy pert cocksure replies.
Yer an anomaly,juts ADMIT.

who is this guys? have you been posting in the hall of shame this whole time?

who is this guys? have you been posting in the hall of shame this whole time?
:o he must have followed SMW and I from our corner.



and he was like that when we found him on Yahoo:rolleyes:

:o he must have followed SMW and I from our corner.



and he was like that when we found him on Yahoo:rolleyes:

He who Haa ha.You dint done found me know how dee Dowdy
day or night.
I find meself,just fine,an then some.

LOL, you drag this guy around with you ?

not intentionally:D

he's kinda like the neighborhood stray dog.

LMAO, This is damn funny. I can picture you sitting there and some old fart next to you rambling on endlessly. Every now and then you have to calm him down by telling him everything is OK. lol
Its fascinating really. LMAO
what do you mean when you say "when we found him on yahoo?

(to accommodate the 'progressives')

The Republicians:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Republicanelephant.jpg

The Democrats:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/DEMOCRATDONKEY.jpg

The Yaktivists:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Myspace-Graphics-Fun-Animations-027.gif

who is this guys?
A fool, that's who.

Give him time and he will be more annoying than dharma. Although probably less swearing.

LMAO, This is damn funny. I can picture you sitting there and some old fart next to you rambling on endlessly. Every now and then you have to calm him down by telling him everything is OK. lol
Its fascinating really. LMAO
what do you mean when you say "when we found him on yahoo?
he just started posting on SMW's board on Yahoo, and followed us over here...i never noticed him posting on any of the other Yahoo boards either.

Go to the library and look for a book titled "Great American Moderates and Their Accomplishments"

Taking "no action" will change nothing.

No. I will not look up your book.

That was unbelievably rude. If you disagree with me, put it in your own words. By the way, since I did not say to take no action was always or even usually the moderate course, I have to wonder what you think a "moderate" is.

A "moderate" cannot be put in the "left" or in the "right," usually because he or she thinks independently of labels and does not think in ideological categories. Everyone claims to do this, but the alignment of most people on issue after issue into two camps testifies otherwise.

A "moderate" also tries to see both sides (or more if they are present) of issues (genuinely asking himself, "I know what I think, but this person is also a thinking being--why does he see it so differently?").

For example, I understand the impulse to ban firearms, but I also understand the impulse to want to own one for safety or sport. I understand the danger they present and I also understand the danger a completely disarmed population presents.

Or, in another example, I understand the emotional, almost visceral, reaction to the abortion of a late term baby, but I also think the objection to early term abortions is not nearly as strong--so that legally banning all abortion seems unwise, even though it should be discouraged and efforts made to offer alternatives.

The end point of all this is that on most issues I would like to see compromises and not so much grandstanding and huffing and puffing about who is right.

That was unbelievably rude.
Funny as fuck, though! :D

No idea what either of those are supposed to mean....
Not surprised.
Tyson Foods of Arkansas was allowed to dump tons of dried chicken excrement, well past the land's capacity to accept and process it, throughout northwestern Arkansas. They were a major contributor to Governor Clinton and was generous with their corporate jet.

The chairman of Loral was President's biggest contributor. The Clinton Administration lifted a ban on exporting certain technologies to China and Loral was the recipient of large Chinese contracts.
China received ballistic missile technology that experts claim saved them possibly twenty five years of R&D had they had to do it themselves.

Why don't you know more about these?
Damned right-wing corporate owned media.

America Rules that is why everyone wants to come here.

www.numbersusaactionbuffet.com

www.usaboaderalert.com

www.americafreedomriders.com

www.sony.v-bux.com/index.php?id=2788

America Rules
you can not respect our flag, our Country then get the hell out.

America Rules that is why everyone wants to come here.
America Rules
you can not respect our flag, our Country then get the hell out.

That is a bit silly. If I didn't "know" better I would say you were a pretense.

Just for the record, the right to disrespect the flag is one of those little things that cause people to want to go to America.

That was unbelievably rude.

Thats Brooks.



A "moderate" cannot be put in the "left" or in the "right," usually because he or she thinks independently of labels and does not think in ideological categories. Everyone claims to do this, but the alignment of most people on issue after issue into two camps testifies otherwise.

Well said.

It is the polarization from political parties George Washington warned us about.

Why don't you know more about these?

It is possible you just made them up.


Damned right-wing corporate owned media.

You just illustrated my own point for me.

I have to agree with you on this, Trav. Conservatives have done just fine the last 12 years without liberal interference or assistance: they've done a fine job in supporting and expanding an illegal war, bringing unending scandal and dirision upon themselves, getting caught with their hands in lobbyist's pockets, acting as though the law and the Constitution simply don't exist (at least not when applied to them, anyway), and so on.

Too bad their non-liberal-overseen activities have come to an end. The shoe's on the other foot now, Trav. Get used to it.

Wild isn't it Marzi? In your country it is the conservative faction. Here in Canada if you replaced the word conservative with liberal you'd have the same truth. They're all a bunch of corrupt bastards. The thing is, they didn't realize that as society becomes less blind, and better educated and more demanding, that we might freaking get a clue.

Here the conservatives are trying to clean up the liberal mess. Seems like only weasels go into politics because the system itself is so filthy it attracts filth. The good ones lose heart. At least an awareness is a beginning.

When people lose party lines and loyalty there will be a small light at the end of a very black tunnel.

www.sony.v-bux.com/index.php?id=2788

America Rules
you can not respect our flag, our Country then get the hell out.

I'm sure the flag appreciates the plug for Sony.

Jester's stuff.....

Since when are Iraq and Afghanistan the standards by which we judge conditions in our own country?

Since the Iraqis and Afghanis had to ignore death threats and horrible conditions to go and vote, dammit.


We never had terrorists attacking our polling stations, and our voting conditions were never as bad as they are in Iraq.

Yes, I know, black people in the U.S. have to deal with scary SUVs and polling places being "too far" or some such idiocy. If one group of people can defy terrorist death threats and vote, another group can do just as well here in the U.S. where they don't have to worry about suicide bombers, dammit.

Yet, black people were continuously prevented from voting up until 1965.

We're not talking about Jim Crow, we're talking about the here and now. People who want to vote can do so, dammit.

The situation in another country is completely irrelevant to the situation in our own.

It's very relevant to the "situation" here in the U.S. It goes to show what people will endure when they really have the desire to make their lives better, dammit.

I have no doubt that if the 2000 election had gone the other way you would hear liberals saying the same exact thing to conservatives. Such is the nature of partisanship.

No, the progressives* shut the hell up real fast when they found out that they won the '06 elections. In the run up to the election, one would've thought that there were legions of NeoCons out there tinkering with every single voting machine in the U.S., dammit.

It is possible you just made them up. That's your answer everytime you're uninformed on a topic.

That's your answer everytime you're uninformed on a topic.

No, kiddo. It is my answer to you when you fail to provide any evidence to support your claims. Which seems often.

It is possible you just made them up.
Did your parents have any children that lived?