"Think nationally, act locally, to catch moonbats red-handed."

Here's one idea for any centrist Democrat who wants to take their party back: Attend your DFL convention and speak out. We met one such centrist at last Saturday's anti-war protest (who stood with us supporting the troops) and he's fired up with support (from others tired of leftist moonbattery) at his precinct.

Attending moonbats in SD 41 (Edina area) will be obvious with their attire this Saturday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x17772

The DU? Don't stand downwind unless you want a contact high.

Sometimes I think we ought to give the moonbats what they want, impeach Bush, throw him out of office, and swear Cheney into the President's chair. I am sure that they all want that!

One aspect of blogging (and public discourse in general) that really bugs me is the use of derogatory terms for people; in this instance "moonbats." Other terms, like "lefties" and "righties" also offend me. I'm for free speech, but I'd like to see tact and respect on everyone's part as well.

Grump.

You have to watch out for those Cargos. They're all insane.

Y'know, what bugs me is when I refrain from using the term "moonbat" for months, maybe a year...

...and then I use it once, in a situation where it makes some sense (in re the self-caricaturing BDS-impaired Cynthia McKinney wing of the party), and I get dinged.

Sigh.

Hey, David - I was driving behind you all the way from Crosstown/100 all the way up to Edgecumbe/Montrealish earlier this week. Tried to get your attention. Didn't work.

Y'know, tunnel vision on the road is one of those things that gets me even more than incivility...

:-)

How goes it?

Mitch asserted: "Y'know, what bugs me is when I refrain from using the term "moonbat" for months, maybe a year..."

Posts by Mitch using the word "moonbat" in the last year: 18. Most recent use of the word "moonbat" by Mitch: March 7, 2006.

(Pesky search function.)

they got bats on the moon? who knew?

What Mitch doesn't want to happen is what needs to happen... a slow, thorough and open investigation into whether impeachment is justified or not.

That's exactly what is being coordinated so of course, Mitch wants democrats to shoot their wad early.

Sorry Mitch. Not gonna happen.

One of the reasons Democrats were so pissed at Feingold is that censure would have effectively served to slap Bush's hand and then the whole issue would be over. That's not acceptable. Some Democrats want blood - I'm one of them.

All of the impeachment chatter is to keep the issue alive and on the front burner but the goal is to get enough to get real hearings first.

"What Mitch doesn't want to happen..."

Wrong-o!

I want the pack of bilious chihuahuas that make up the Democrat party to s t r e t c h their bleeding as long as they can. I want them to sidetrack their half of the national discussion into endless, pointillistic fulmination; it will provide both a perfect distraction for the Prez to maneuver, and act like a big blood-flavored chew toy to keep the Dems in a raging, distracted froth (and thus harmless, and probably a lot more useful to the nation than when they play at "governing").

Vote now? Vote later? Pffft. WGAF?

Mitch, You sure seem a lot more angry lately...

Things not going so well there big guy?

I like this...

"it will provide both a perfect distraction for the Prez to maneuver"

How so many people fell for the whole "I'm a uniter" crap still amazes me.

P.S. LOVE the whole "the media is the enemy" angle... Blaming the media for the debacle that is Iraq! Genius! Pure Genius! Once you start blaming the same guys that were covering your lying ass for so long, you know there's a problem.

Jesus - Even tweety is turning against your guy...

BTW, just a comment, I caught part of Hewitt today and he played a clip of Gregory asking Bush a simple question and then played Bush's five minute lecture about spreading liberty and freedom being on the march. God, It was priceless. He's become a parody of himself and yet, you guys still fall for his didacticism.

Maybe I've been giving you more credit than you deserve.

"Mitch, You sure seem a lot more angry lately...

Things not going so well there big guy?"

If you're not angry at some things, you're not paying attention. But no, I'm not angry in the least. Animated, perhaps, but not especially angry.

"How so many people fell for the whole "I'm a uniter" crap still amazes me."

But then, with six years' hindsight and a whole lot of world events changing a whole lot of plans, I supposed one can find a lot of thing to amaze one.

"P.S. LOVE the whole "the media is the enemy" angle... Blaming the media for the debacle that is Iraq!"

Pffft. Iraq is no debacle. It's difficult - there's nothing about war that obliges one's enemy to fall over and die on command. Situations ahve changed, plans have adapted.

" Genius! Pure Genius! Once you start blaming the same guys that were covering your lying ass for so long, you know there's a problem."

The press covered for *BUSH*?

Send me a bottle of whatever you're drinking.

"Jesus - Even tweety is turning against your guy..."

Tweety?

The guy from "Even Stevens?"

Sorry, Doug - you lost me there.

"BTW, just a comment, I caught part of Hewitt today and he played a clip of Gregory asking Bush a simple question and then played Bush's five minute lecture about spreading liberty and freedom being on the march. God, It was priceless. He's become a parody of himself and yet, you guys still fall for his didacticism."

Er, yeah. Your review is surprising. Shocking, even .

Bush could dive into a rain-swollen creek to save an infant, and you (plural and singular) would kvetch.

"Maybe I've been giving you more credit than you deserve. "

Nobody asked!

Mitch said,

"I'm not angry in the least."

The elevation in bitterness, animousity and overt contemnpt for Democrats says otherwise...

"with six years' hindsight and a whole lot of world events changing a whole lot of plans"

Hindsight? Really??? I'm just some dumb guy living in the country selling overpriced crap 40 hours a week... How is it that my predictions about Iraq are proving more accurate than the Presidents', Vice-presidents' and the Secretary of Defense? Maybe Howard Zinn is right about how that happened Mitch. http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0406

"Situations ahve changed, plans have adapted."

The situation is as it was predicted to be - by the crazy, wacko 40% of us that bothered to read the other stack of material that Bush and company didn't bother to talk about.

We weren't fooled and we weren't wrong on intelligence. The mainstream media didn't report the whole story. It's that simple. A few, and I stress FEW organizations reported the whole story but their reporting never made it into the top 5 corporate owned media outlets. Why Mitch?

We were right Mitch - you (singular and plural) were wrong but now you're telling us that we should just let by-gons be by-gones, join hands and sing America the Beautiful and support our President during wartime?

If we're at war Mitch, please, PLEASE call congress and beg them to officially declare war already. I'm getting a little sick and tired of more tax cuts for your buddies while we add another trillion to the national debt.

And yes Mitch, the media did cover for Bush and continued to do so until you and the entire National Touring Company of the George W. Bush Sycophant Choir started blaming the Media for turning the American public against the "war".

Watching you guys now is like watching Barney Fife trying to load his pistol to shoot the messenger.

"Bush could dive into a rain-swollen creek to save an infant"

But we both know that would never happen so why bother... If it were to happen, How would you explain the FOX News crews mysteriously being on site with the cameras rolling and more importantly, how would you explain Karl Rove standing 300 yards upstream with muddy shoes?

"Mitch said,

"I'm not angry in the least."

The elevation in bitterness, animousity and overt contemnpt for Democrats says otherwise..."

I don't see an elevation. I see a fairly consistent level of contempt. Wholely justified, I might add.

BDS + insufferable arrogance = Doug

"If the Democrats had had any actual ideas in 2000, they could have probably put Algore into office"

I kind of liked the Clinton/Gore/Clarke idea of getting bin Laden, but your guy just didn't agree. They spent the first several months of 2001 planning the war in Iraq which, according to the Bush cheering section, was because of 9/11 - which hadn't happened yet. Hmmm. Interesting logic there.

I just don't get this impeachment business...what else are we suppose to do? Let the terrorists run us over? I just don't get what is with these people unless they are just angry about losing still. Doesn't make any sense.

gobigred said,

"I just don't get this impeachment business..."

Here... let me explain...

When a president breaks the law, for example, lying about an affair with a consenting adult, one of the options available to us is called impeachment.

That's of course if you are a Democrat. If you are a Republican, you can break the law and your own party members in Congress will change the laws to make what you did legal.

BTW, if you seriously believe that terrorists will run all over us if we were to hold Bush accountable for breaking the law, then the terrorists have already won.

Teena: "I kind of liked the Clinton/Gore/Clarke idea of getting bin Laden, but your guy just didn't agree."

Teena, sweetheart, Clinton/Gore/Clarke had at least two golden opportunities to apprehend Osama and passed on them. You can try to revise history, but selling it is much harder.

For kermit -
According to Paul O'Neill, then Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration....

"Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism - a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign - or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle east. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of PRE-EMPTION.

The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas feith, and david Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally not intended for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister, Banjamin Netanyahu."

Read more at: http://wwwitzone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2876

Teena, how does any of that change the fact that Clinton refused to accept Sudan's generous offer of bin Laden on a silver platter?
You are obfuscating.

"I kind of liked the Clinton/Gore/Clarke idea of getting bin Laden, but your guy just didn't agree."

Focus like a laser beam. Admit your error.

My focus, Kermit, is on the facts regarding whether or not George Bush was ever serious about getting bin Laden. I don't believe he ever was and he admitted to as much when he stated that he doesn't even think about him much.
I did not state what Clinton did or didn't do. I stated that I liked the idea that it should be done as was outlined by the Clinton/Gore/Clarke team as they left office. You read into it what you wanted to and obfuscated the rest.

One last time: "I kind of liked the Clinton/Gore/Clarke idea of getting bin Laden, but your guy just didn't agree."

"My guy" wasn't in office when both the Sudan and the UAE offered bin Laden up to the US. Period. It was the friggin 90s.
Your focus is on Bush Derangement Syndrome, a serious impediment to logic.

Look at your statement
"A key to the policy shift would be the concept of PRE-EMPTION."

Like going into Iraq, perhaps? To elimninate WMD threat that everyone and their brother believed were there?

"The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors."

And closely resembled plans laid by the Clinton Administration and Paul O'Neill. Bush was using strategery developed YEARS before his election.

Please, seek help for the BDS. It is serious.

Kermit said,

"how does any of that change the fact that Clinton refused to accept Sudan's generous offer of bin Laden on a silver platter?"

Thoroughly and completely debunked yet that doesn't seem to bother you Kermit.

And for everyone bitching about liberals wanting to impeach Bush, let's go back a few years shall we?

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

A project of The Conservative Caucus

There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be "successful":

1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.

6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.

7) The Federal government's ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush's "Operation Desert Storm".

8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?

The fundamental issue is whether Bill Clinton's military action against Iraq is important enough to die for. I am prepared to die in defense of God, family, and country---but I don't believe that this preemptive strike against Iraq is worth dying for. Ask yourself: is it worth your life, or that of your spouse, your child, your parent, or your neighbor?

Historical record is a bitch ain't it?

Kermit,
I must confess that I lead you down the path to bin Laden even though I do not buy that story one bit. I did, as most Americans did, right after 9/11. But since then, I have read so much that points to 9/11 as aninside job and of Israel having engineered the whole thing to accomplish some of their long term goals that I just know in my heart Bush has been lying about 9/11 all along.

Even hiring Monica Lewinsky to seduce Bill Clinton came from the Israelis. Yes, Clinton should hve resisted, but those who knew him well also knew he had a great deal of trouble doing that. He was an easy mark. Read the following:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm

Ooops. Try this link instead.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm

"Historical record is a bitch ain't it?"

The US Taxpayers Party is hardly what I'd call "a group with a political voice of the majority".

That's as laughable as saying Dennis Kucinich speaks for all liberal Democrats.

I'm sure most Republicans would say the same thing about Howard Phillips as most liberal Democrats would say about Kucinich: He has some good ideas, but he's not representing me.

Try again.

"But since then, I have read so much that points to 9/11 as aninside job and of Israel having engineered the whole thing to accomplish some of their long term goals that I just know in my heart Bush has been lying about 9/11 all along."

So what flavor is the koolaid this month, Teena?

That entire iamthewitness.com website can be summed up in two sentences:

"Hitler was right: IT'S DA J0000Z!!!"

(hint: There is no QUICKER way to destroy your credibility in an argument that to use the phrase "I just know in my heart". Well, "IT'S DA J0000Z!!" is close)

Bill C,

...And the majority of Democrats are not calling for impeachment but Kermit and Mitch seem to want the readers to believe that they are.

Doug,

That's why Mitch uses statements like "the movement is growing". Because he wants us all to think that the majority wants impeachment? A "growing movement" is not a majority.

I wonder which is winning out in your head.

Reading comprehension (or lack thereof) or wishful thinking?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say wishful thinking.

You are trying to say Mitch's statement -

"I want the pack of bilious chihuahuas that make up the Democrat party "

- is meant to imply that the entire party is in favor of this? He's posted far too frequently in the past in reference to the screaming meemie MoveOn.org/Howard Deaniac crowd taking over the Democrat party, and kicking sensible Democrats like Joe Lieberman to the gutter (just like lots of leftists accuse the zionist/neo-con movement taking over Republican party) to want us to think it's the entire party.

Oh, BillC,
Wake up, man. This is not about a fight between the left wing and the right wing, Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative. It is a fight between the people of the United States of America and illegal and immoral actions taken by the Bush administration which follows the guidelines set forth by factions within the Israeli government. When you begin to realize that, you will learn how to be a winner in this fight. If not, get out of the way and let those of us who are serious about this fight do the work.

In other words, please don't obstruct by throwing in that blather about patriotism, gay marriage, abortion, support for the troops by sending more troops to die, and gun owner rights. Don't crow about people trying to take away religious freedom or traditional holidays. Those are issues that Bush has absolutely no interest in and will leave "to future presidents" as he will the Iraq War or to the real "screaming meemies" like Pat Robertson.

First of all Bill, I don't think Mitch said "the movement is growing" as you state. It was the Star Tribune and their actual headline said "Parties jockey as impeachment talk grows"

Mitch did however infer that it is the entire Democratic party when he said, "If the Democrats had had any actual ideas in 2000,..."

Second, You're the one who introduced the discussion of a "majority".

I posted,

And for everyone bitching about liberals wanting to impeach Bush, let's go back a few years shall we?

which was followed by...

2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

Whether or not it is a majority is irrelevent. There was a movement to impeach Clinton and it started in the local caucuses and grew from there.

Mitch wants to see a premature movement to impeach but that's not going to happen. The democrats are going to wait till after the 2006 elections then call for hearings to see if impeachment is warranted.

As I've explained before, one of the reasons that Dems were pissed at Feingold is that if he had gotten support for Censure, the opportunity for impeachment down the road is blown.

That's why Republicans should have supported censure because impeachment hearings will be sought.

TEENA: This is not about a fight between the left wing and the right wing, Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative. It is a fight between the people of the United States of America and illegal and immoral actions taken by the Bush administration

KK: In other words ,"let's all see things like Democrats do"

The war is not illegal, because the Congress voted for it.

Teena, you have many mistakes:

"obstruct by throwing in that blather about patriotism," Talk of patriotism is only blather for people who not appreciate they country.

"gay marriage, abortion," you are only to talk of this.

"support for the troops by sending more troops to die"

Never minding the great work they do?

"gun owner rights" is not blather, it is truth.

You are idiot. Please shut up.

Katarina,

Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force to disarm Iraq.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. If Congress didn't declare war, then either we're not at war or this is an illegal war. Which is it Einstein?

Further, your English is pathetic. I'm guessing you are either From Yugoslavia or are wasted off your ass on Schlitz Malt Liquor.

Katarina,
Got about an hour and a half? And, please, stay until the very, very end. There is some very interesting information about a gold heist at the World Trade Center that appears to have been stopped because the buildings fell.

Google "Loose Change"

Teena, This is tough to watch...

My wife, son and I were watching parts and she said, "how is it possible that all of this could have been orchestrated and then covered up so thoroughly.

My son who's only 13 said. "the best place to hide something is right out in the open..."

He's right - All of the evidence is right there but nobody wants to believe it because nobody would believe our own government could be so evil.

It's is beyond our ability to comprehend.

All you have to do is keep dismissing everything as conspiracy theory and denigrating people who ask questions. That keeps the scrutiny directed at the "wacko's" instead of at the evidence.

Doug -
This was supplied by plunger:

"But wouldn't they (the "terrorists") need someone on the inside the towers to help them coordinate their work...someone like Zim Shipping - a company primarily owned by the Israeli government - the same company that Dubai relied on to push the Ports deal forward...the same Zim Shipping company that cut short its WTC lease just days prior to 9/11 and vacated the building?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm...

We learned earlier about the employees of the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo, who were anonymously informed of the attacks two hours before they took place.

Even more intriguing than the Odigo warnings was the narrow escape of 200 employees of an Israeli government run company called Zim Israel Navigational. With over 80 vessels, Zim Navigational is the 9th largest shipping company in the world. Just one week before 9-11, Zim Navigational moved out of its World Trade Center offices with over 200 workers."

Fascinating.

Teena is above citing an article asserting Jerry Falwell conspired with Benjamin Netanyahu to, uh, "trap" Bill Clinton in yet another illicit sexual affair, this time with a 21-year-old Jewish girl. It was published by a neo-nazi, anti-semitic so-called "populist" weekly newspaper routinely available in the trashbins of alternative coffee houses, dive-bars, and used book stores around Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Known for recruitment and promotion of white supremicist causes, it is a fundraising tool developed by Willis Carto, who is one of the more influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years and a follower of Adolf Hitler. Welcome back, Teena, but you will only embarrass yourself further if you don't start doing your homework.

Next we have Doug highlighting a 1998 little gem from Howard Phillips, a throwback to the Nixon Administration, with the tag-line, "Historical record is a bitch ain't it?" Well, yes it is, Doug, especially if you are suggesting Howard Phillips (the 2000 presidential candidate for the Constitution Party) represents anything close to the constituency that elected George W. Bush twice. You have a valid point that not everyone in the Democratic Party is currently demanding impeachment proceedings, but Howard Phillips is no Russ Feingold. Neither is he John Murtha, but both seem to suggest replacing the Commander-in-Chief with Dick Cheney while we are fighting in Iraq. You might want to think all this through a bit more.

But more importantly, Doug, what you have posted to Katarina is utterly dispicable. I have no idea who she is or where she's from but for now she at least deserves the benefit of a doubt. It appears she may be using English as a second language. Perhaps not. But to impulsively attack somebody as you have who is seemingly new to this blog and whom you obviously do not know is completely indefensible, however representative of your politics it may be. As a gentleman, sir, you owe her an apology.

Doug,

There is a huge disconnect between saying "the entire party had no ideas in 2000" and "The entire party wants Bush impeached".

"Second, You're the one who introduced the discussion of a "majority"."

Short term memory issues?

"Bill C,

...And the majority of Democrats are not calling for impeachment but Kermit and Mitch seem to want the readers to believe that they are.

Posted by: Doug at March 26, 2006 09:43 AM"

"That's why Republicans should have supported censure because impeachment hearings will be sought."

And they'll happen only if the Dems win back a majority in the congress. That's a big leap to assume.

Bill C said,

Short term memory issues?

Ummm, Nope Bill...

The US Taxpayers Party is hardly what I'd call "a group with a political voice of the majority".

Posted by Bill C at March 26, 2006 08:18 AM

followed 2 posts later...

...And the majority of Democrats are not calling for impeachment but Kermit and Mitch seem to want the readers to believe that they are.

Posted by: Doug at March 26, 2006 09:43 AM"

Maybe you need to check out your short term memory issues.

Also,

"And they'll happen only if the Dems win back a majority in the congress. That's a big leap to assume."

Doesn't matter. Hearings will be sought and with a majority of Americans now agreeing that the war - sorry - the alleged "war" isn't worth it AND with stories about Bush determined to go to "war" regardless of the facts, Congress will probably have no choice but to allow them.

They'll call for hearings and stack the deck with partisan hacks like usual but by then, there will be enough evidence against the administration that it will be the Republicans begging for censure.

By then, any Democrat that accepts censure other than impeachment will need to start looking for another line of work.

I would be willing to bet we'll see a few Republicans looking for censure by the end of summer.

Yes, censuring the president or impeachment certainly seems to be the winning political theme for the Democrats these days, considering all the Mexican flag-waving over the weekend and how well the Libby case is going. There's bound to be a few Republicans willing to commit political suicide to get Cheney into the Oval Office as well, so come November the Dems just might get their hearings as the pigs begin to fly. Or not. I dunno.

But do you ever think, Doug, that maybe all this yapping about wiretaps and censure might just be a way to get those gullible True Believers to write those $10 and $15 checks? And what about Cindy? Given the amount of attention she got for just hanging out in a Texas ditch, if there were any real groundswell supporting "censure" or impeachment, you'd think we'd have seen it by now. Instead, only a few thousand turned out to protest the war in Iraq, but a million illegals or so turned out to protest just the very idea of enforcing immigration laws. I'm just sort of rambling here, I know, but are you suggesting that the anti-anti-immigration folks and the anti-war folks and the impeach-the-president folks are really going to win the House back for the Democrats? That's the strategy?

If not, then what's the strategy? I honestly don't know. Does anyone? Enlighten me.

"It was published by a neo-nazi, anti-semitic so-called "populist" weekly newspaper routinely available in the trashbins of alternative coffee houses, dive-bars, and used book stores around Capitol Hill in Washington, DC...."

Well, Eracus. Now we know how you feel about Vanity Fair. And, I suppose, Hitler. You've once again demonstrated your knowledge, either recently gained or pried from the recesses of your brain. I know you expect a "BRAVO", so bravo. Now that's over with, let's get back to the here and now.

If Jerry Falwell confessed - bragged, really - to Vanity Fair magazine, that he was aided by the Israeli government in finding a woman to seduce Bill Clinton, what do you think about that? I don't give even a slice of shit what you think of a magazine or its origins. Embarassment might have made me care, but, see? No embarassment. That would be your wish.

Eracus, I don't care what the Democrats strategy is for winning the White House.

I want to see Bush peacefully and legally removed from office and I want to see him indicted and charged for crimes against humanity. It has nothing to do with politics and has everything to do with survival.

Next Eracus, you said,

"But more importantly, Doug, what you have posted to Katarina is utterly dispicable."

Let's see... was it "dispicable" when Katarina posted to Teena,

"You are idiot. Please shut up."

You can expect to see an apology from me when either, I see you admonishing Katarina for impulsively attacking somebody who is seemingly new to this blog and whom she obviously does not know OR Lucifer laces up his Hockey Skates - which ever comes first. You decide.

So, let's see if I got this right, Teena. Having formerly cited a white supremicist news weekly, you nevertheless still believe the Israeli government relied on Jerry Falwell, a white fundamentalist Baptist minister, to compromise the President of the United States because the same one true white christian minister, Jerry Falwell, also confessed - bragged, really - about the same thing to Vanity Fair. Now, Teena, Jerry's been to the right of Pat Robertson on the Jew-baiting rubber chicken circuit for quite some time. He's made a good living out of it for some 40 years now. He's quite popular in Dixie among the true white christian congregations. Do you think maybe Vanity Fair has done alot more for Jerry Falwell over the years than Jerry Falwell ever did for Vanity Fair?

Doug - thanks for the clarification; you just hate Bush and otherwise don't have a clue. In the meantime, I was just hoping to draw you out a bit more so Katarina could see just exactly what kind of person you are. For the record, I think a person perhaps using English as a second language might sometimes read and write awkwardly, but would still know racist propaganda when she sees it. Drunk or sober.

What's interesting --sad, really-- is that Teena, who reads and writes fluently in English, apparently does not. She believes it.

Eracus,
Shortly after Bush was installed, the more fundamentalist and prominent mouthpieces, like Pat Robertson and Falwell, instructed their followers to begin calling themselves Judeo-Christians. There was a renewed emphasis on the return of Jerusalem to the Jewish people and the idea that it would be the location of the return of Christ - the Rapture. I believe all of this was done to bring more devout followers to the side of Israel - a virtual army of the willing to protect it from its enemies. Apparently Pat Robertson thinks those who travel to Israel might also want to enjoy his amusement park while they await the second coming.

Amazingly, millions of Americans don't seem to care that Dick Cheney and George Bush, representing our sovereign nation, entered into a private contract with a group of people - the Project for the New American Century - whose central focus is the security and sustainability of Israel, not the U.S. As an intellectual and an American, that ought to bother you a bit. Call me racist all you want, but even you must recognize that our democracy and our security has suffered under this policy.

I almost never get polled. I don't know who does. The only calls I get are from those groups that can't think about anything els but whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Someone ought to tell them that the defense of mariage Bill was passed and signed by Clinton.

Anyway, the results of a recent CNN poll show that of those asked 84% believe the the information about what really happened on 9/11 has been concealed by our government.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/336719.shtml

Eracus said,

"you just hate Bush..."

Gosh, Why would that be...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060327/wl_afp/usbritainbushiraqdiplomacy;_ylt=AktJtk.OctihKnruRTptpoOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

A few key points...

"US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country"

Bush said war would be the last resort. He's a liar.

"the president was certain that war was inevitable"

Because HE had already decided to launch the war. It's not inevitable when YOU have the power to change your mind.

"Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.""

Even though every expert on Iraq was telling him otherwise? That's not the leading indicator of a strong leader. It's a sign of a severely damaged and dangerous person.

"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq"

If there were no weapons found in Iraq, and we had some 1800 inspectors on the ground inside Iraq, why did we launch a preemptive war? I used to visit Hannity.com before the war started and the regulars used to decry the weapons inspections program because of the cost of keeping inspectors there. It was a burden on the Poor American Taxpayers. Last time I checked, we were at 250 billion for the "war".

"Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president"

Geez... The next thing you know, Bush will be proposing hijacking planes and flying them into U.S. landmarks to gain public support for his New American Empire policies.

With all due respect, you guys are just citing propaganda tracts that have, at least in Teena's case, been around for some 60 years. The link you've provided, Doug, is just the Agence France-Presse citing The New York Times, both of which have been and still are the primary sources of disinformation governments have exploited for generations. That is their purpose. That's what they do. That's what international newspapers and their sources are for. It's all politics using the strategy of divide and conquer to form and drive popular opinion to effect a desired outcome, namely, the destruction of the United States and the very concept of a freely elected, independent constitutional government. Human freedom is the minority position in the world we live in today. It is a dire threat to the established order. That's what the fighting's all about and always has been.

I realize nothing I say will ever have any impact because your "research" is driven by emotion and leads you to follow one emotionally satisfying factoid to the next until you arrive at the desired result -- hating your country, working to undermine its government, and accepting the domination of a foreign ideology. If you stop and think and gain some perspective from history you will realize this is by design.

Think about it. Hasn't everything you now believe been formed and driven by the popular images and media onslaught you have immersed yourselves in to comply with popular culture? Have you ever given any thought to how that popular culture was formed? Why is it, for instance, that everywhere you look on TV, in the newspapers and popular magazines, the exact same "popular opinion" is expressed over and over? Is it really true? Or is someone just telling you it's true over and over until you believe it?

Until you understand the context and methodology by which you have arrived at the worldviews you hold, you will never understand whose side you're on. If you don't know who's talking, you don't really know what's being said. And if you don't really know what's being said, how can you whether to believe it?

Read enough history and you won't have that problem. You might still come out on the same side you're on now (I doubt it) but at least you will know exactly who you are and what you stand for. Afterall, this is why Bush was elected, and Reagan, for that matter. They were not elected by the party faithful, which was a minority constituency. They were elected by people who finally broke the code, figured out what was propaganda and what was not, and voted in their own self-interests, namely survival.

It's why we're all here on the internet and why the internet is, even in its infancy, already a major driver of American politics. It's because the stuff on TV, in the news weeklies and national newspapers, while influential, just isn't true.

EWracus said,

"our "research" is driven by emotion and leads you to follow one emotionally satisfying factoid to the next until you arrive at the desired result -- hating your country, working to undermine its government, and accepting the domination of a foreign ideology."

You forgot getting free stuff Eracus.

Eracus,
You are absolutely wrong that emotion drives my research. I was just as devasted as any other American when I thought that Islamic terrorists had crashed passenger jets into buildings on 9/11 simply because - as many Bush supporters said - they hate our freedom.

But I was raised to know right from wrong. My parents, as I probably said here months ago, are very moral, intelligent people who taught us to recognize when we've been duped, lied to, conned. It is a protective "device" that good parents teach their children so they will be more successful in the world and will make better choices.

Even on 9/11, I thought it strange that bombs in the Twin Towers were detonated, but that day it seemed any kind of evil was possible. As it turns out, I was not the only person who noticed the bombs go off. There are countless videos that prove this, but you seem to be content to ignore this fact.

People with common sense ask questions and expect to get real answers. Our government didn't even bother to do that. Instead, they duped us, they lied to us, they conned us.

Good design!
[url=http://wrufzaez.com/pzgz/gxfq.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://vvlxtuoc.com/ofpb/jqvl.html]Cool site[/url]

Nice site!
[url=http://ncpccaqj.com/ntzj/oyon.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://rpaqzoie.com/trlf/zpsn.html]Cool site[/url]

Good design!
[url=http://wrufzaez.com/pzgz/gxfq.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://vvlxtuoc.com/ofpb/jqvl.html]Cool site[/url]

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit