WHY, OH WHY isn't Russ Feingold running for President?

...and the new 'latest outrage' is: Cutting all funding to Columbia University by Duncan Donuts R-Ca.
"The last refuge of a scoundrel" is...being a Republican I guess

Of course, the first time I heard "betrayus" was used by actual troops on the ground when Petraeus was sent to Iraq. That's what they were calling him.

Start putting up the pictures of these traitors, with captions of their America-hating actions underneath.

How about an "Impotent Democrat Hall of Fame" Utilize images. Make politicians accountable for cowardice and "playing it safe." Make it unsafe to be safe.

Well Brad, lets look at the 2 main points regarding the Boxer Ammendment; first, the Max Cleland issue. The advertisements had nothing to do with his service as a soldier, they were directed at his voting record as a Member of Congress (particulary his votes against various homeland security measures). Do you suggest that a sitting Member of Congress be immune from havng their CONGRESSIONAL record made public so the voters can be truly informed? Or do we continue with the charade that the attacks were against his Service as a Soldier?
The second is Kerry. It was Candidate Kerry "reporting for duty" that made his record an issue. Regardless of the fact that Kerry (to this day) has never opened his Service Record for scrutiny (despite a pledge to do so), he ran on the platform of a War Hero. Once Candidate Kerry made that a central theme, it's quite fair to ask the questions regarding reports of minor cuts and self inflicted wounds being upgraded to Combat Injuries. If Candidate Kerry is going to claim he spent Christmas in Cambodia, then has witnesses refute those claims...well that leaves a truth out their that the Voters have a right to ask about. If he's going to make it a major point on his record, then he needs to allow his entire record to be opened (again, giving the voters the facts. In addition, if he's going to make his time in Vietnam a campaign platform, then he needs to answer for his time as a War Protestor; including the allegations he comported with the enemy at the Paris talks.
Of course the most telling item regarding the false outrage the Left has towards (their) members who served is the utter hypocracy in making it a central, overriding issue. If military service is/was a pre-requisite to be Commander in Chief, an overriding consideration for anyone in public service, then why was WJ Clinton's complete lack of service glossed over in his campaigns against two true War Heros (Bush 41 and Bob Dole)?

KellyJ: So, you're condoning the pictures the GOP made of Cleeland with Osama Bin Laden??? That's "OK", right?

If the Democrats did that, you'd be SCREAMING ABOUT IT!!!

It's DISGUSTING to put a picture of Osama Bin Laden with an American vet Senator who lost 3 limbs for his country. Or do you disagree? Why do you hate the troops?

KellyJ: Of course, you have to bring up Clinton, too!

How about all the sick/lewd GOP hetero and homo sex scandals...all GOP since Clinton 10 years ago with Monica?

kelly j - Hmmm... $100.00 to Move On . Org, Send . . . . . Sent . . .

It's all about the Hate. HateN on people that like to hate.

Its so easy to say, hey we hate this person cause theys got different view points then us. Why bother even listening to the leader of Iran, we gonna kill him soon anyway. Ain't that how its supposed to work?

Are republican's good hater's? Does a bear shit in the woods? But the progressives are also good haters. And why not hold a grudge, Bush is after all a fucking moron. But in the words of some pimp somewhere...

Don't Hate a Playa, Hate the game.

KellyJ asked, re: Cleland...

Or do we continue with the charade that the attacks were against his Service as a Soldier?

Dunno. Looks like your happy to continue with the charade that MoveOn's ad was an attack against both Petraus' service and the entire U.S. Military (if we take Bush at his word).

Are you ready to condemn Bush and the other Republicans for their absurd attacks on MoveOn?

If so, please do, and then we can discuss Cleland and Kerry and Clinton as you like.

KellyJ-

You are simply a fraud and hypocrite! Max Cleland was absolutely attacked, in print (eg-see here), and spuriously, by the right wing smear machine for SERVICE RELATED issues. No doubt those attacks were spurred by the fact the right wing, as they are want to do, was shamelessly trying to denigrate him for his votes and stances for political reasons, in any way they could, just as they have in SO MANY instances (McCain, Gen. Shinseki, former Marine officer and Gulf War veteran Scott Ritter, former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, former treasury sec. Paul O'Neill and on and on.)

And for you to bring up and justify the ridiculous swift-boating of Kerry by the right wing smear machine and not even mention the far more evidenced fact that GW Bush essentially went AWOL. Clinton didn't pretend he had served and didn't lie to get us into a war that has caused the lives of hundreds of thousands.

The fact is that Petraeus was and is allowing himself to be used in a POLITICAL way by the Bush administration and many have pointed out how inappropriate this is for a military officer. It is a First Amendment right to speak out and the duty of any patriot to criticize their "leaders" when they are disingenuous and leading our country in the wrong direction. He absolutely deserves whatever criticism comes his way when he steps into the political arena in the way he has. You are nothing but an unpatriotic tool and deadender! Please t8ake your disinformation some place where people are as dishonest and ill-informed as you are.

The venerable vulnerable preznit blush can put any american into GITMO prison by signing a piece of paper that says that american is an "enemy combatant".

When that happened once upon a time, the Supreme Court ruled that such an american could file a writ of habeus corpus.

Such a writ gave that american nothing more than an opportunity to go before a judge and proclaim his or her innocence, and requiring the GITMO crew to show cause why that american was being held forever without a lawyer, contact with family, and you know, other common human decency concepts anyone but a banana republic would comprehend.

Then the republicans in the 109th congress (the one before the '06 elections), changed the law to suspend the writ of habeus corpus.

Specter (R-PA), feeling guilty and duped for having carried the ball in the 109th congres to get rid of the writ under those circumstances, wanted to undo the evil deed.

Well the venerable vulnerable republicans in the senate, most of them that is, voted against it:

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT), Lott (R-MS), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Stevens (R-AK), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

Most democrats, by far, and some sane republicans voted to restore habeaus corpus:

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Sununu (R-NH), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

(The Official Vote). Notice that it was a cloture vote to stop a filibuster, like the one Brad mentioned.

The vote was short of the 60 required to stop a filibuster, and so, the republicans succeeded in keeping habeus corpus from an "up or down floor vote".

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that a sufficient number of these same Democrats voted to abolish habeas corpus to begin with... just a year ago... when they absolutely could have prevailed in preventing that.

Of course some of us can not change course once we have set upon a wrong course.

And some of us can.

And we know who the two groups are.

Anybody remember that quaint old term: "Sense of the Senate"? Well, there is no sense left in the Senate.

"Oh, we had to abrogate your habeas corpus rights because * pitched a hissy in the Rose Garden!"

"Oh, we had to eviscerate the Constitution without even reading the bill because the World Trade Center blew up before our very eyes!"

"Oh, we had to legalize warrantless wiretapping because they told us the boogeyman was coming right before vacation!"

"Oh, we had to give a lying little fascist the authority to attack anyone he wants because people will think we're soft on terror!"

"Oh, we can't impeach these war criminals and torturers because we have too much work [not] to do!"

"Oh, we cannot refuse to fund the occupation of Iraq because the oil barons will rip our balls out and you're too stupid not to fall for the blather about troop safety!"

"And, look! Those mean old Republicans won't let us do more than resort to this incessant cant! So you really have to elect more of us to feed from this trough while you and the rest of the world rot in the agonies of poverty and war, and broil to death in the global warming we will not address."

So, really, who isn't having trouble changing a wrong course? I can't tell.

99 - I know what you have done )-:

What did I do?

I did not move to the South Pole. I did not join the Republican Party. I did not deck my neighbor for hiding from the news. Dredd will stop bleeding in a few days. I endured the entire Senate Judiciary hearing on FISA today, along with all the UN speeches, plus implored my USELESS senators NOT to let this Iran warmongering nonsense of the Senate amendment pass. I've been a damn model citizen....

I salted a slug tonight, I'm ashamed to say, but it was decimating a plant I have worked hard to nurture. I've slaved for the gophers all summer. The grasshoppers are fat and happy. It's just the slug was making a slime-encrusted mess of the plant; ate two thirds of it; and those suckers reproduce like rabbits. So, it was in defense of life!

"She's the very model of a modern blogging liberal
Dogging an administration which always acts criminal...."

Ahhh... but did you sort your trash properly? Did you, huh?

Can't handle the message so you kill the messenger? Typical.
Steve: The wounds Cleland sustained were from a dropped grenade, not enemy action. That is a factual statement, not an attack.
and not even mention the far more evidenced fact that GW Bush essentially went AWOL.
Do you refer to Dan rathers fraudulent documents?
Note the use of your term "essentially went AWOL". In otherwords; you think, but have no proof. Kinda kills your credibility to repeat the same lies that have been discredited already, na?

Big Dan: So, you're condoning the pictures the GOP made of Cleeland with Osama Bin Laden??? That's "OK", right?
If the Democrats did that, you'd be SCREAMING ABOUT IT!!!
So how do you feel about all the pictures comparing Bush to Hitler? Or are you a hypocrit?
The Cleland/Osama add was in poor taste and should NEVER have been done (note one of the most ardent condemnations came from Republican Senator McCain).

Why do you hate the troops?
Typical canard from the Left...you jump right in with assumptions with no clue regarding the person your addressing. 22 years US Navy with multiple tours in the Gulf (including the 1st Gulf War).
It would be just a fallacious for me to ask why YOU hate the troops (since you have no problem denigrating them with your ill-thought remarks).

Of course, you have to bring up Clinton, too!
Only in the context of the discussion (does military service count towards political office). I mentioned NOTHING about Monica or sex scandals, yet you still bring it up. It apears you are the one fixated on that event and use it to ignore the actual issue I raised.

How about all the sick/lewd GOP hetero and homo sex scandals...all GOP since Clinton 10 years ago with Monica?
Completely ignoring all the sex scandals that Democrat members of congress have been involved in. Also ignoring that when a Rep gets busted in a scandal, it is dealt with. Unlike Gary Studds (homo-sex with a minor...re-elected 6 times after the fact). Unlike Barney Frank (gay prostitution ring run out of his apartment). Fred Richmond (solicited sex from a 16 year old; re elected). Jefferson (caught red handed with 90K in marked bills; re-elected and on the HLS committee).
And where are the Republicans who get caught? Persona non grata. Foley: Gone (even thogh he did nothing illegal...all advances were with FORMER pages who were on legal age). Cunningham: In jail. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Brad: Looks like your happy to continue with the charade that MoveOn's ad was an attack against both Petraus' service and the entire U.S. Military
MoveOn called Petraeus a liar AND a traitor BEFORE he had even made his presentation. MoveOn has on other occasions condoned viewpoints that use the same language directed at service members in general.
That is a FACT. The fact that you can't see that only serves notice of your inability to seperate your bias from the truth.

A general question regarding the upcoming election:
After Rudy (who i do not support BTW) beats Hillary, what insanity will be brought forth then? Will you folks on the fringe left give him a grace period? Will you then start with the Gulliani=Hitler farce?
Think about it and be honest.
IF a Republican wins the WH next year, what will your honest reaction be?

KellyJ #6,

1st point: The attacks against Cleland's voting record used the tactic of portraying Cleland as being non-patriotic. What a load of you-know-what! The attack ad conveniently omitted the REASONS for Cleland's refusal to support various so-called Homeland Security measures. Because of the tone of that ad, and because of its intentional omission of any information SUBSTANTIVE to Cleland's voting record, it's not only predictable, but completely in line with the ad makers' modus operandi to bring up the unfairness of attacking Cleland for his so-called lack of patriotism.

Look, I hate spit balling each other during election time as much as any Democrat does, but the Republicans want to play spit ball, instead of discussing issues. So, spit ball it is.

2nd point: Candidate Kerry. With a few minor changes to your Kerry diatribe, here is what we have:

It was President Bush announcing, in full flight suit regalia, "mission accomplished" that made his military record an issue. Regardless of the fact that Bush (to this day) has never opened his Service Record for scrutiny (despite his continued insistence publicly that he fulfilled all of his NG commitments), he ran on the platform of an experienced military veteran. Once President Bush made that a central theme, it's quite fair to ask the questions regarding reports of having cut and run from his NG post in one state in order to work for an election in another state, as well as reports that no one in his NG unit recalls his presence in the unit during the time period he claims he served. If President Bush is going to claim he spent his time during the Vietnam War serving honorably and dutifully in a NG unit, then allow his military record to refute the claims that he shirked his duties, by opening that record to public scrutiny...well that leaves a truth out their [sic] that the Voters have a right to ask about. If he's going to make it a major point on his record as The War President, then he needs to allow his entire record to be opened (again, giving the voters the facts. In addition, if he's going to make his time in the NG during the Vietnam War part of his campaign platform, then he needs to answer for his time as a NG no-show for duty; and along these lines, he needs to answer the allegations of his family's long-term, close, and very friendly relationship with powerful members of Saudi royalty, and the influence that relationship has had on his foreign policy decisions in the ME.

KellyJ, if you really believed in what you wrote about Kerry, then you would also believe similar accusations about Bush. You don't, though. Therefore, your Kerry rant is an example of your hypocrisy.

YOU are the HYPOCRITE, KellyJ!!!

KellyJ says:

"Brad: Looks like your happy to continue with the charade that MoveOn's ad was an attack against both Petraus' service and the entire U.S. Military "

I don't think it was a charade, didn't the MEAN it??? I think they MEANT what they SAID! This GOOF is a GOP politician in a military suit!!! I JOINED MoveOn BECAUSE of the BetrayUs ad!!!!! They have SPINE, unlike a lot of Democrats...

KellyJ: Did you see where the Daily Show took clips of what Bush said before BetrayUs's speech, and then juxtaposed them with BetrayUs's speech, and they were THE SAME? Yet, BetrayUs said he is "independent"...WHAT A JOKE! Does he think we're IDIOTS???

Sadly, we have to depend on the Daily Show for insightful things such as that...and not the CMSM. They wouldn't be caught DEAD linking what Bush said to what BetrayUs said. Because that would be "insightful, analytical, investigatie journalism".

I'm also sick of this NONSENSE, that we can't question: military leaders, our government, and religious leaders. As if they are "above reproach", and are "more American" than all other Americans! The last I checked? These people work FOR us, don't they? And we PAY for them!

But then again, I haven't checked lately...how much of the constitution did the Republicans put in the shredder so far?

From my understanding it was Newt G that abolished the office of technology assessment that was made up of scientists with repubs and dems overseeing it.

This group was responsible for laying down the final word on what the scientific facts were for certain subjects.
They had had world renowned status I think.

But now all we can do is bicker like a bunch of fucking children. "You lefty's you are so wrong, No you, no you"

So what is needed is the Brad Blog Office of Technology Assessment. So Big Dan can stop pushing Jesus and his creationist argument on everyone.

ONEGUY: We already have the "Department of Faith". Check this out, it's official! It's right on the White House's website:

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp

Unbeknownst to Brad, his staffers haven't informed him (yet) that he's a member of the White House's "Department of Faith"...

Well "Big Dan" your level of character is now showing:
I JOINED MoveOn BECAUSE of the BetrayUs ad!!!!!
So, you made your choice to join a group that deliberately uses the route of slander and defamation.
That tells us all we need to know about your character.
we can't question: military leaders, our government, and religious leaders.
Well, its quite apparent you can't tell the difference between having a disagreement and questioning your leadership over it, and outright slander. Had MoveOn waited a day, then issued a rebuttal add (without the sophomoric word play) it would have a greater impact and would have been HONEST political debate.
Instead they chose to label him a traitor BEFORE he had ever made his presentation.
One wonders what you would be saying today had Petraeus went the other way and said we need to get out yesterday?
Would you then applaud him as honest and noble with the same fervor you denigrate and accuse?

As for "shredding the Constitution", exactly what RIGHT have you lost? Certainly not speech (else this site would have been shut down).
But then its incredible that the same people who accuse BushCo of "shredding the Constitution" and setting up a dictatorship are the same people who faun all over Hugo Chavez, despite the FACT that Chavez actually did shred his Constitution, set himself up as "President" for the next 20 years, shut down the Media (TV and paper) that has been critical of him, and is in the process of Nationalizing (stealing) the countries Commercial economic base.

Can you see how schizophrenic that dichotomy makes you look?

...shut down the Media (TV and paper) that has been critical of him...

Kelly, don't leave out the part about how their criticism extended to aiding a U.S.-backed coup against him, long as we're being honest here....

So you think it would be OK for the Feds to shut down CBS for using fraudulent documents in a blatent attempt to influence an election in favor of the candidate they endorsed?

As it turns out those media outlets had Chavez pegged years ago.

As it turns out, I would be delighted if CBS, or any other network, would help sane people take over our government, especially if they could see to it that these criminals be tried and convicted at The Hague.

I'd settle for decent reporting that was unequivocally anti-fascist.

Actually, Chavez did not shut down the network that helped the coup for quite some time, and they were shut down for another reason, but I'm not remembering what it was. But it's a fact that they helped the * administration's attempt to topple him by backing a coup... which thankfully backfired on them big time. The people of Venezuela have a much better quality of life as a consequence.

I have never seen anywhere any evidence that CBS endorsed any candidate, and neither have you. The information on those documents that caused Dan Rather so much trouble was correct --- verifiably so --- and reported in full elsewhere, the BBC, without retraction.

What do you hope to gain by passing wind on this blog? We have a good track record for banning disinformation artists.... Some of them have been so stubbornly ignorant that they functioned as such and also had to go. I'd love it if just once one of you would clearly state your purpose. Like maybe:

I just love to be an asshole and add more shit to people's brains; or

I get paid to keep you too appalled to think; or

I'm hoping enough weak-minded boobs read my comments so they won't believe these scary truth-freaks....

You know, something honest and straight-forward like that.

And, no, it's not okay for the feds to shut down any law-abiding media outlets. Chavez did not do that in his country either.

Impeachment for Dummies . . .

For kellyj:

From the "Best of Chavez" collection . . .

Adjunct 38.0 ...and the pièce de résistance of this is the naturally choreographed backdrop . . .

KellyJ you need to use “the Google", the man who swore out an affadavit that Kerry had saved him (just as Kerry said he did) works for the Chicago Tribune, is a Republican and was in no other way a supporter of Kerry’s campaign.

And nobody’s been able to prove one way or the other whether Kerry was in Cambodia, though he likely was. You’re an ass.

Post as "KellyJ" did not go through. Guess that means I'm banned; which is fine since this is a private site and Freedom of Association is pretty darned important.
It just rather pathetic that instead of trying to engage in actual dialogue, or even posting factual evidence that shows where I have made incorrect statements (thereby forcing me to re-examine my own values) you show the typical Modern Liberal Tollerance (or lack thereof) that you so often claim, yet seldom actually practice.
You are all so stuck in your own mindsets that even the thought that you may be wrong, or that the truth lies somewhere between, has you running to kill the messenger rather than debate the message.
But thats OK. In the end your Nominee will be Hillary, and she will lead YOUR Party (remember MoveOn...We paid for it, it's ours) to a catastrophic defeat.
As long as the lunatics are running the Asylum, you will be further relegated to insignificance.

Just remember, you've already used Bush=Hitler, so if you start using Rudy=Hitler will only enforce the belief in the middle 80% of the voters that they were right to toss you.
BTW, don't you think its a bit of Hubris to use the phrase "KKKRove" (again, with the intollerance) when it was a Congressman of YOUR Party who was actually a Leader of his local KKK (Byrd).
The Democratic Party has been the constant home of the Slave Holders. The Klan was a militia of the Democratic Party to ensure blacks remained uneducated and non voting after the Civil War. The Democratic Party blocked womens suffrage for 2 decades.

It was the Republican Party born in the idea that the Missouri compromise was wrong and slavery shgould be abolished. In the 1910s it was the new republican Mahjority that got women the right to vote (Susan B Anthony actually voted a strait repblican ticket). In the 1960s LBJ went to the Republican Party to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act passed (being blocked by Democratic senator Al Gore Sr.).
But dont take my word for it. These are historical FACTS. Look them up if you dare. Be honest. Don't equivocate. Look at the historical record.
Or stay in ignorance and continue to feed each others hate and spite while continuing to claim Stolen Elections for every well deserved defeat.
Peace out.

jkelly - It make no sense wasting time debating with republiKKKans

since all your facts are lies & all your lies are fact.

What r u fresh out of Rectal Roberts university ?

Ya missed a few: gop Greedy Old Perverts, Kompassionate Konservative Kriminals.

How can we forget the the great republican depression & all the homeless disabled vets.

So run along now and download the latest rushton limbowel the turd's latest podcast . . .

You must have typed the wrong code in the verification box, Kelly, because you'd have been warned if you were going to be moderated or banned. As for the rest of your comment, I can only say it appears you have no reading comprehension.

I can only say it appears you have no reading comprehension.
Well, look up what I have posted and be honest. Show me where I am wrong. Not from any silly ideological driven video or blog, but from credible sources not out to score points.
You guys are great at the High Art of Hubris. Just look at "Judges" post:
It make no sense wasting time debating with republiKKKans
Aside form the childish use of "KKK" (again, research the true origins of the Klan) his statement begs the question; Have you tried? Have you actually sat down and put aside the moronic rhetoric and just talked?
since all your facts are lies & all your lies are fact.
Yet the Judge provides zero evidence to show where I have lied.
What r u fresh out of Rectal Roberts university ?
Again, Judge can only resort to rediculous word play while refusing to actually bring anything of substance or reason.
Greedy Old Perverts, Kompassionate Konservative Kriminals.
Now were going from rediculous to ludicris.
How can we forget the the great republican depression & all the homeless disabled vets.
Do you refer to the Depression of the 1930s or some other event? If so, do you have any concept of how that came about; the effects of the European Economy on the US. The after-effects of the Versaille Treaty and how that effected currency markets around the world? Or do you just toss out one line sound bites without any true undestanding of the causes and affects of the events that created those times?

It's simple folks. Do some research. Show me where I am wrong. Stay away from ignorant quips and one liners and put some real substance into your positions.
Until then, you only sound like a bunch of petulant children.

Hey Judge, in all fairness, I'll start. Since you have an affinity for using the abreviation "KKK" I'll point you to the origins of the KKK.

Just a few points from history:

In Louisiana the Democratic convention resolved that "we hold this to be a Government of White People, made and to be perpetuated for the exclusive benefit of the White Race, and....that the people of African descent cannot be considered as citizens of the United States." Mississippi and Florida in particular enacted vicious black codes, other southern states (except North Carolina) passed somewhat less severe versions, and President Andrew Johnson did nothing to prevent them from being enforced.

But of the three major Presidential candidates, two were outspoken enemies of the Ku Klux Klan. And when the Democratic convention opened in New York, many Democrats were de- manding the party adopt a platform plank condemning the Ku Klux Klan. The resulting fight tore the convention apart and after days of bitter wrangling over the issue, the platform plank de- nouncing the Klan lost by a single vote. (this was the 1924 Convention).

There is plenty of information out their, just research it. And to be honest and fair, I will admit their were/are plenty of Republicans who are members of the KKK (David Duke anyone?), but the Rep Party goes to extraordinary lengths of not endorsing them and not giving them a platform to speak from. The fauning adulation and continued re-election of Robert Byrd is symbolic of the Democratic Parties stance.

Please, research it and show me where I am wrong.

jkelly - If you are waiting for some kind of response from me don't hold your breath . . .

It's about time someone lance the boil on Turston limbaugh the thurd's big fat ass & nail

shut his carrier of lies and propaganda, then enlist this piece of shit coward into the military.

Please, research it and show me where I am wrong.

I pointed out where you were wrong about Chavez and about Rather and you are ignoring it in favor of continuing with antagonism and disinformation. You do the research. You're the one whose ignorance needs remedy.

Karl Rove has been systematically disenfranchising black voters to help steal elections. So the KKKarl bit has a sound basis. Have you been under a rock all this time? Greg Palast is a good place to start.

If you are waiting for some kind of response from me don't hold your breath
Thats about what I expected (but was hoping otherwise). You act pretty big tossing one liners and casting dispersions, but when confronted with FACTS you can not refute, you run away.
shut his carrier of lies and propaganda
Yet still provide no proof, except proof of your own intollerance and cowardice by bannishing the messenger.
then enlist this piece of shit coward into the military.
Already did 22 years. What have you done?

Well people, is this the voice that speaks for you? False accusations? Runs from an argument instead of proving his point? An expert at what Edwards calls "Bumper Sticker" propaganda rather than present a cogent argument/defense?

Is this what you represent? Is this what you want to be known for? Are you viewpoints so shallow you can't/won't stick up for them and prove them?

Kelly, it's aspersions. Casting and dispersion are the same thing. You're, clearly, listening to propagandists, without researching the facts, and just coming in here to accuse us of it. Most of us are tired of explaining things to trolls. Do your own research! When you have a better grasp of what's actually happening, people will want to discuss and debate with you. As it is, you're just coming off as a nasty little nuisance.

Agent 99: I pointed out where you were wrong about Chavez and about Rather
Re Rather: So you think the documents he used were legit? Dan Rather perpetrated a fraud in an attempt to influence an election. He did it with information that had already been discredited by trying to repackage it in "new information". CBS was complicit in letting the piece run with no verification as to source ar content. It took someone less than 2 hours to prove the docs were fakes. Then to follow that up with the absurdity that "even if the documents wern't real, the information in them was". Excuse me? If the information in them was true, then where is the source for this "true" information? And why didn't you just present that?
No, the truth is that Rather WANTED the information to be real. Wanted it so bad that it overroad any sense of judgement and led him down a path of forgery, deceit, and ruin. 20 years ago he would have gotten away with it. In todays connected world information is available instantly and through multiple sources. If the accusations (AWOL) were true then something or someone with credible information would ahve come forward years ago (most likely durring the original 2000 election). To date, the ONLY thing out their continue to be the suppositions and speculations of a biased group with an agenda.

RE Chavez: I know all about the coup attempt and the fact the major media stations were complicite in egging it on (heck, the CIA has become so neutered they can't even pull off a coup against a 2 bit dictator with the news services on your side? Truman must be rolling in his grave over what his creation has become).
Regardless, one of the key components to any FREE Society is an unbiased and free press. Chavez's crackdown is indicative that Venezuela, under Chavez, is no longer a free society. The fact he has now shredded his Constitution and is setting himself up as "President for Life" only proves those news organizations were correct in their original assesment of him and his goals.

My point was comparing how people accuse Bush of doing everything Chavez has actually done (shredidng the Constitution, creating a dictatorship, etc) yet the same people who accuse Bush of that fall all over Chavez in adoration.

Don't get me wrong on this, their are some things Bush has done that i like. Their are some things he has done I don't like. The same with Clinton, Bush 41 before, Reagan, and even Carter. The difference is I can seperate my viewpoints on the issues without creating an irrational hatred for the person.
Not to be flippant, but the biggest problem I had with Clinton and Lewinski (other than lieing to a Grand Jury...but that follows the adage that it's not the crime, but the coverup that gets you in trouble) is this:
WJC was the most powerful man IN THE WORLD. Countries would thrive or die at a careless word. Economies would stagnate or flourish on a whim. He was in the position that millions could only dream about.
All of that; and Monica was the best he could do? I mean, come on, at least JFK was doing Marilyn Monroe for gods sake. If your going to be callous enough to cheet on your wife, at least have some good taste so when you get caught other men say 'well, yeah, it's Denise Richards; I would have done her too'!!!
(Not that I'm making any accusations regarding DR and WJC...just she's a hot babe who gives a visual clarity to my point).

Most of us are tired of explaining things to trolls.
Yet nothing has been explained. People have only replied with nasty remarks then run away.
If your viewpoints are so strongly based in fact, then you would not mind explaining them...getting people to see your point of view and maybe even agreeing with it (or at least validating it).
Is the Truth a nasty nuiscance? Have you even bothered to check the veracity of what I have said? Or have we all become so irational we refuse to even try anymore?

As a great Republican once said way back in 1963:
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

The irrational hatred people have towards Bush (and Republicans/Democrats in general..yes, I know some Reps who are as deranged as some on the Left) has led them to where we are today.
BTW; that Great Republican. Martin Luther King Jr. in his "Strength to Love" speech.

Dan Rather perpetrated a fraud in an attempt to influence an election. He did it with information that had already been discredited by trying to repackage it in "new information". CBS was complicit in letting the piece run with no verification as to source ar content. It took someone less than 2 hours to prove the docs were fakes.

RIGHT THERE, OUTRIGHT LIES, aka DISINFORMATION. Either go back and find out the truth about this stuff yourself, without bothering the rest of us to try to educate you --- which is not our job, despite the fact that you can easily find the answers to your questions by using the search function here and elsewhere --- or just stop spreading disinformation all over this site.

One more whopper like this and you are going in the moderation queue and only comments that are free of this kind of garbage will be approved for posting.

THIS IS THE WARNING I WAS TELLING YOU ABOUT LAST NIGHT.

jkelly
enlist this piece of shit coward into the military. "Already did 22 years".

All gop tools / trolls say they were, are or have kiddies in the military.

We have seen this tactic before & we know you are a pro.

So who's payroll are u on and what republikkkan think tank r u with.

If all you gop sheep... that say you were in the military... were in the military

we would be speaking German or farsi. . .

oops - Sorry to the Sheep . . .

One of the issues alot of people have (particularly people who have never been in the military) with Bush and the AWOL story is this line from a FITREP (fitness report):
"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.”
The problem is this; In military Jargon that does NOT mean the person is missing.
Heres the way FITREPS work. The parent command of the meber is required to submit an evaluation at specific intervals (yearly, upon transfer 90 days after the guy reports in, etc).
Now, if a member of the military is sent on Temporary Duty elsewhere (called TAD...Temporary Assigned Duty); and it does not matter how long its for; the parent command is still required to submit an evaluation. Since you have been away TAD for that period that phrase is standard jargon that only says "He is assigned to this command but has been TAD to another command. We have no comment on his performance". In a wierd twist the unit your TAD to can also submit an eval that says the same thing (not observed). Believe me, i have plenty of these "Not Observed" (we call it NOBs for short) evals in my record for times when I was at different schools and stuff like that.
So people see an eval that says "he wasn't observed here" and they assume that means he was never "seen". That he was AWOL. What it really is, is just an administrative closing of the loop that every command accounts for each person on a periodic basis.
Thats it.

Regarding Rather; where is the lie?
Were the documents frauds? Yes, CBS has admitted as much. Did CBS admit culpability via lack of verification? Yes, again admitted.

Was the piece timed to coincide with an election.
Why else would the producer (Mapes) be in contact with a member of Kerry's election staff (Lockhart) regarding the story? And it wasn't the first time CBS has been complicit in helping Kerry out:
http://www.mediaresearch...s/2004/cyb20040220.asp#1

Was the story old and discredited? Yes, this has been tromping around since the 2000 election. Bush released his entire Service Record. No smoking gun has ever been found.

99, warn me all you want. But here i am presenting you with my evidence while you present nothing but threats of bannishment. If my evidence is wrong and a source of disinformation (rather than just something that does not conform to your world-view) then you should have no problem posting your own unbiased links and making me look like a fool.
Are we up to an honest debate or just a bunch of "I know what I know and you can't tell me otherwise"?

Kelly, while you're languishing in banished land, you should listen to the first hour of Brad's radio gig yesterday. There is some information there that is directly on point. Also go to Greg Palast's site and read up.

And, here, listen to Palast in the first hour of this one... since reading doesn't seem to be getting through to you. Maybe if it comes through your ears you will get a clue.

...and when you get done listening to those, here's the hard evidence.