Who's a Democrat?

[|\/۞\/|]

IIRC, Charles Manson, among others.

Son of Sam - Jew, NYC - Definite Democrat.

 

[|\/۞\/|]

Stalin would vote democrat.

 

[Archibald Nixon]

OMG DEMS = KILLERS & TYRANTS???!!???

 

[Mongo]

Mongo hate democrat pussies. mongo support GOP

 

[Mongo]

Mongo's cousin, Pongo, also hate democrats.

 

[Ogami]

Who's a Democrat?

Democrats are people who say George Bush creates hurricanes with global warming, and personally steered Katrina to New Orleans because he hates black people.

Democrats are people who say they will cure Christopher Reeve's paralysis or Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's, but those dastardly Republicans won't let them!

Democrats are people who steal the money of taxpayers in order to buy themselves votes from those who don't work.

Democrats consider everyone a victim, except the actual victims of crime, because the criminals themselves are society's victims.

Democrats are people who are anti-war when it comes to fighting the dictators of Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, but they are pro-war when it comes to waging battle against American soldiers or American corporations.

The Democratic Party, where Treason is Job One.

-Ogami

 

[Dark Link]

 

[Ogami]

Thanks for the delusion, Dark Link. It was white Southern Democrats who bitterly fought the Civil Rights movement every step of the way. It was Republican votes that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Brainwashed liberals are right out of Orwell's 1984, they can't even cite real history to back up their movement, they have to invent fictional American histories to make themselves feel good about themselves. Sad.

1964-Present

June 10, 1964
Civil Rights Filibuster Ended

Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.

Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive 67th vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the 20th century's towering legislative achievements.

Reference Items:

Graham, Hugh Davis. The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Mann, Robert. The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell and the Struggle for Civil Rights. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1996.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

 

[FBI parte due]

Since when are all liberals Democrats?

And since when does Ogami get to label other people "brainwashed"?

 

[|\/۞\/|]

Bob Marley, The Rock, Tim Robbins, and Kevin Spacey are probably all Democrats, even if they are registered Republican. Foley was really a Democrat, all along, for instance. We must be wary, for the enemy of the people is everywhere.

 

[Ogami]

Because, Parte Due, I can cite actual links and articles and quotes to support my views. All I see from the opposition here is mindless hate.

You're certainly entitled to that hate, but it hasn't won a single argument for any Bush-bashing, military-bashing, America-bashing liberal here. (Or independently thinking moderate or whatever the hell lying liberal Democrats pretend to call themselves.)

 

[Archibald Nixon]

Fifteen years ago I bought one of these in St. Petersberg for ten bucks.

 

[|\/۞\/|]

Because, Parte Due, I can cite actual links and articles and quotes to support my views. All I see from the opposition here is mindless hate.

No, you are a liar, and terrible at debating since the very concept eludes you. You are not correct in your views simply because they are your views, and you believe in them because you prefer them to alternatives.

Much of what has been shown for you as been purposefully ignored. But it's when you try to put on a clown act of 'worshipping Bush' to try to troll others is it painfully obvious just how flabbergasted you are in these 'debates.'

You're certainly entitled to that hate, but it hasn't won a single argument for any Bush-bashing, military-bashing, America-bashing liberal here. (Or independently thinking moderate or whatever the hell lying liberal Democrats pretend to call themselves.)

I certainly am a Bush and Military basher. How many times do I have to shove the distinction between the government and the military, and the USA and its citizens. You know, the most important group in all of this?

 

[eloisel]

Yes, well, can't say Social Security was such a brilliant idea. The Labor Movement isn't all that to brag about either. Has anyone posting here - other than me - actually read the Kyoto Treaty? Does anyone posting here still think Abraham Lincoln had kind thoughts about slaves?

 

[Ogami]

No, you are a liar, and terrible at debating since the very concept eludes you.

Of course. Liberals are reasonable people who are open to other points of view. Why didn't I see that?

You are not correct in your views simply because they are your views, and you believe in them because you prefer them to alternatives.

The results of the last three national elections bear out my view as the majority view. Liberals, and their hate for Bush, are the minority view. Their mistake is in thinking that their hatred somehow makes up for lack of numbers. It doesn't.

Much of what has been shown for you as been purposefully ignored.

I've posted many articles accurately refuting the claims made by the left on this board, and have yet to see one single apology or someone saying they were wrong. That would indicate that the Bush-bashers purposefully ignore anything that doesn't fit their worldview. Shocking!

But it's when you try to put on a clown act of 'worshipping Bush' to try to troll others is it painfully obvious just how flabbergasted you are in these 'debates.'

What's painfully obvious is that morons who create an infinite number of duals to debate me don't somehow increase their cumulative IQ points in the process. I'm pretty certain I've got 2-3 liberals using a half-dozen duals spouting the same hate week after week. How am I to tell them apart? I can't, and it would be fruitless to try.

I certainly am a Bush and Military basher. How many times do I have to shove the distinction between the government and the military, and the USA and its citizens. You know, the most important group in all of this?

It's not as if the left hates all military groups. They loved the Soviet military in the past, they loved the North Vietnamese military, the North Korean military, and these days they love their favorite freedom fighters, the Al-Queda military. The liberal desire to prevent another 9/11 seems to center around understanding Al-Queda and feeling their pain. No thanks.

Stay out of power and on the sidelines where you belong. No one will miss liberal rule.

-Ogami

 

[|\/۞\/|]

Of course. Liberals are reasonable people who are open to other points of view. Why didn't I see that?

I hate to shatter your delusion, but a number of the people whom take a hardline contrary stance to your own hardline stance are not liberals.

The results of the last three national elections bear out my view as the majority view.

I counter your claim of the elections reflecting the opinion of the majority with the fact that the elections were rigged. If you do not wish to refute evidence of this, then you must concede your statement as being false.

Liberals, and their hate for Bush, are the minority view.

There are plenty of conservatives who also hate Bush. You continuously muddle the lines to make it seem as though if it's a black and white issue, which it isn't.

Their mistake is in thinking that their hatred somehow makes up for lack of numbers. It doesn't.

Source?

I've posted many articles accurately refuting the claims made by the left on this board, and have yet to see one single apology or someone saying they were wrong. That would indicate that the Bush-bashers purposefully ignore anything that doesn't fit their worldview. Shocking!

In case you didn't notice, we are accusing each other of them same thing here.

What's painfully obvious is that morons who create an infinite number of duals to debate me don't somehow increase their cumulative IQ points in the process.

This is fucking nuts. Name some duals.

I'm pretty certain I've got 2-3 liberals using a half-dozen duals spouting the same hate week after week. How am I to tell them apart? I can't, and it would be fruitless to try.

LOL!!!!!!

It's not as if the left hates all military groups. They loved the Soviet military in the past, they loved the North Vietnamese military, the North Korean military, and these days they love their favorite freedom fighters, the Al-Queda military.

I'm not of the left, so you wasted a bit of time typing that up.

The liberal desire to prevent another 9/11 seems to center around understanding Al-Queda and feeling their pain. No thanks.

Al-Queda is a boogeyman, and that description makes it sound like the Palestinians carried out the attack.

Stay out of power and on the sidelines where you belong. No one will miss liberal rule.

-Ogami

I'm not a fucking liberal!! I'm a nasty racist, and if I were in power, all illegals would be deported, no anchorbabies would be permitted, Israel would cease to recieve military support, and the US would be fixing its infrastructure and researching alternative energy sources. You know, taking care of the real problems, instead of the made-up problems?

 

[Ogami]

wrote:

I hate to shatter your delusion, but a number of the people whom take a hardline contrary stance to your own hardline stance are not liberals.

Of course! They are moderately-independently-thinking-anarchist-nonextremists. Who just happen to agree with liberal Democrats 100% of the time. But that's a coincidence, trust them!

I counter your claim of the elections reflecting the opinion of the majority with the fact that the elections were rigged.

Case in point, LOL! Why take my word for it, when !{*}! just proved my above paragraph. In politics, there is just EXTREMIST NEOCON REPUGNICANS, and everyone else on the other side! Liberals? That's just something Ogami invented, there's no such thing! And if there were really such a thing as liberal Democrats, they'd duck and dodge and hide under other labels, because they're too cowardly to admit what they are. But one thing they do admit to, and that is that Bush STOLE the election. LOL

Independently and moderately, of course.

There are plenty of conservatives who also hate Bush. You continuously muddle the lines to make it seem as though if it's a black and white issue, which it isn't.

I'll agree with this statement, and I'll give a precise example. When polls show that a MAJORITY of Americans are upset with our Iraq policy, the talking heads on TV cite this as proof that most Americans hate Bush, and hate his war in Iraq.

Source?

Such polls also lump in all conservative Republicans who want FIRMER action in Iraq, and want us to take the fight to terrorists instead of fighting defensively against those who want to kill us. This is a chief reason the liberal Democrats are going to lose the November elections, because they read such polls and conclude that all of America hates Bush like they do, based on such polls. You can be disatisfied over Iraq, and still not want a cut-and-run policy as the Democrats have extolled.

Same for conservatives disatisfied with Bush's limp attempt to control illegal immigration. Or any other issues. The polls don't automatically indicate a win-win situation for Democrats. That's overconfidence, and it's gonna bite 'em.

This is fucking nuts. Name some duals.

I can't even type some of them.

Al-Queda is a boogeyman, and that description makes it sound like the Palestinians carried out the attack.

Because... the real global terrorist is Bush, I presume you mean to say? Again, you independents always independently agree with liberals 100%. Why should any distinction be made? What moderateness told you Bush stole the election(s)? You make me laugh.

-Ogami

 

[Ogami]

!@#$%^&*() wrote:

I'm not a fucking liberal!! I'm a nasty racist, and if I were in power, all illegals would be deported, no anchorbabies would be permitted, Israel would cease to recieve military support, and the US would be fixing its infrastructure and researching alternative energy sources. You know, taking care of the real problems, instead of the made-up problems?

I'll handle this separately because you've got some meat here. 12 million hispanic illegals should be deported, but most of them are doing jobs that American citizens couldn't be paid to do for any amount of money. I'll you an example, Tabasco sauce. There is no way to harvest these by machine, they must be hand-picked. Your hands get horrible cuts and scrapes if you don't know what you're doing. Americans aren't willing to do this in Lousiana, so they get migrant workers to pick the damn things. They're willing to do it, Americans are not. So they do perform a useful part of our economy.

In a perfect world, I'd agree that we wouldn't support Israel militarility. In a perfect world, we'd send a UN mission in there and force the Palestinians and Israelis to live together under a joint government. But it's not a perfect world, and in the real world, funding Israel in a sea of arab hate is a geopolitical necessity. Who else is going to do that, Bangladesh? It's up to us to be the world's policeman, like it or not.

As for researching alternative energy sources, what idiot would believe the government has the best track record in such innovation? (This also goes for medical cures from federally-funded stem cell research as opposed to private sector research). Liberal Democrats cannot point to any track record of the federal government in invention, innovation, or research. That has always come from the private sector. This means that no matter how many billions the federal government throws at alternative energies, none have been found so far that are cheaper than oil.

Windmills, ecofuels, geothermal, solar power, none of them can meet an industrial nation's power demand. None of them. That's a basic economic fact, and until you get past that, oil will drive our power needs.

Now Dick Cheney and President Bush have advocated the restarting of closed nuclear power plants and the building of new nuclear power plants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think that's a great idea. And that's what the French have done, and liberals love everything the French do, so I would think we'd get some bipartisanship on nuclear power.

But we all know the American left isn't really concerned about America's energy, they just look for wedge issues to divide the country. Just like they're really not concerned with curing Christopher Reeve's paralysis or Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's, these are just wedge issues to grant them power.

-Ogami

 

[bad dog]

HA HA HA HA HA look at this. you can see where democrats find new talking points.

http://www.cpusa.org/

 

[Blue Meanie]

Both Dems and Reps are kool-aid guzzlers IMHO.