THE DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[dantheman]

THE DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | BARBARA STOCK

The Democrat Party of my father is dead. It started to die with Lyndon Johnson and the ''Great Society.'' Jimmy Carter crippled it, but it could have been saved. Bill Clinton put a stake in its heart and John Kerry has let his party bleed to death. There is no hope now. The Democrat Party is almost devoid of morals, honesty, or integrity. Its members have thrown it all away in their rush for power and in their headlong plunge towards socialism. The liberals don’t even try to keep it secret anymore. They don’t care who knows. They just keep lying.

To win the election in 1991, the Clinton camp put out their ''October Surprise.'' Lawrence Walsh handed down a last-minute indictment of Casper Weinberger and that tipped the scale in Clinton’s favor. Interestingly, if one checks, he will find that the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy was chaired by none other than Senator John F. Kerry. Perhaps Bill Clinton climbed out of his sick bed to repay a favor.

In 2000, a Democrat operative leaked the news of a George Bush drunk driving arrest that was 25 years old. It nearly cost Bush the election.

This year the Democrat lie-machine has been moving at warp speed. The truly horrifying thing is that Democrats have openly been joined by their ultra-liberal friends in the media. The New York Times has totally sold its soul to the Kerry campaign. CBS has sacrificed 50 years of credibility to assist John Kerry. Can anyone now believe anything either of these once irrefutable sources of news puts forth? Not only has the Democrat Party committed suicide, it has taken many great American icons with it. It was all done in the name of power and the need to regain it.

The Democrat Party never recovered from loosing the Congress in 1994. Democrats have been bitter and angry ever since. When Al Gore lost in 2000, the rage turned into blind hatred. Democrats perpetuate the lie that the Supreme Court ''gave'' the election to Bush. They did not. Democrats continue to insist that a million African Americans were ''disenfranchised'' in the last election in Florida. They were not. Now they circulate a disgusting pamphlet that tells minorities if they try to vote, evil Republicans will hit them with fire hoses ''like they did in the 1960’s.'' Pay no mind to the fact that most of those using fire hoses were following the orders of southern Democratic governors.

For the 2000 election, Democrats put out ads that showed a man being dragged to death behind a truck while saying Bush was against severe penalties for ''hate crimes.'' This ad ran while the men responsible for that very crime were on death row. Is there a more severe penalty than death for such a crime? Are not most murders ''hate crimes?'' Then the liberals have the gall to accuse Bush of executing more people than any other governor--which was another false statement.

Can today’s Democrats say anything that is not a lie? Is it possible anymore? Do they care? If they can’t win an election honestly, then they will just lie and cheat.

Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft has reported that four counties have now been found to have more people registered than actually live in the counties and are eligible to vote according to the last census. The old Democrat saying ''vote early and often'' is alive and well. Be sure to drag dead or senile grandma with you so you can vote for her as well.

Now we have this year's ''October Surprise.'' The Democrats, in concert with the New York Times and CBS, are trying to convince Americans that Bush allowed 350 tons of high explosives to fall into the hands of the enemy. The way the story was written, it sounded as though the explosives were stolen last week or yesterday. As it turned out, they probably were not stolen at all.

The plan of the editors was a good one, but they forgot about those pesky reporters who were embedded with the troops. The reporter embedded for NBC, Dana Lewis, now with Fox News, states that he saw no weapons with the IAEA’s seal on them as he walked the complex when the troops arrived on April 10, 2003. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watch-dog group, had reported in February 2003, that some of the high explosives had already been moved. The IAEA also reported huge explosions at that site during the opening days of the war. One has to ask, since these weapons were illegal under the United Nations agreement with Saddam, why were they not removed and destroyed when they were found by the IAEA?

The last visit from the United Nations organization was in January of that year. Sometime between January and April, Saddam probably moved many of those explosives. A complete inspection of the site was done on May 27, 2003, and nothing with an IAEA seal was present. There were several deep craters. How does one get 40 semi-truck loads of high explosives out past roads teaming with American soldiers and the sky full of spy planes without being seen? Who would have organized such an operation? The Saddam government was in chaos and there was no insurgency at that early date.

Why then did the Mohamed El Baradei, chastised by Bush for not know about Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program and being weak in its dealings with Iran, leak this story to the media? Remember, El Baradei knew these explosives were missing in May 2003, when it was reported to him that our inspectors had found no such weapons at that complex. Why did he wait until one week before the American election to reveal this ''news?'' Could it be that the mighty and corrupt United Nations feels its world supremacy is threatened by President Bush? Is it possible that it would feel much more comfortable with John Kerry who has already pledged his allegiance to the United Nations and stated that dying under the U.N. flag is honorable, but dying under the American flag is not? John Kerry voted against the Gulf War because he felt the war should have been carried out by United Nations commanders, not American generals. Kerry wanted to do the unthinkable--put American troops under foreign command.

This election year has been like no other. Outside interference from Europe in the form of mass e-mail messages pleading with Ohioans to vote for Kerry and British newspapers printing columns with statements like ''Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?'' Terrorists like Yassar Arafat endorse John Kerry. Forged documents and blatant lies abound. Democrats have sold their souls to the devil in an attempt to regain their power, and the devil wants his due.

Hopefully, Americans will bury this rotting and decaying Democratic Party on November 2, 2004 without allowing it to totally corrupt our democratic system beyond repair. If we are lucky, Bush will win in such a decisive manner that Kerry’s army of 10,000 lawyers, poised to make the election a living hell, will be sent home. A new Democratic Party may rise from ashes and if it does, I hope that there will be at least a few honest people among them. But at this point, I’m not going to place any bets on it.

About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/.

[Mike AI]

:rokk:

[Winetalk.com]

About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events.

which makes her another Alex in the skirt....

is that the skirt which makes you all so excited?

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 3 2004, 10:22 AM
About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events.

which makes her another Alex in the skirt....

is that the skirt which makes you all so excited?
No it doesnt. She LIVES here : )))

[Almighty Colin]

No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.

[gigi]

A nurse who 'enjoys writing about politics'.....okay, so at least we know where this is coming from...lol

She basically reiterated almost every anti-dem sentiment I've seen...and although she brings up all these topics as fact....she gives no proof......just commentary.


Now, go read it again and where it says dem, replace it with republic....and it will still make sense. ;)

[Almighty Colin]

"The death of the Democratic Party". I remember hearing about that in 1992 right before Clinton took 8 years. The problem for the Democratic party is not in getting Democrats elected, it is in getting northern Democrats elected.

[dantheman]

Death might be a little strong, but it's in ICU for sure :)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 3 2004, 11:41 AM
Death might be a little strong, but it's in ICU for sure :)
Would you really like living in an all Republican country? Wait a minute - you live in Bama ;-) ;)

[chodadog]

" Its members have thrown it all away in their rush for power and in their headlong plunge towards socialism."

Take it from an outside observer. The two parties are so alike that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. Headlong plunge towards socialism? Haha. Right.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 3 2004, 11:41 AM
Death might be a little strong, but it's in ICU for sure :)
Would you really like living in an all Republican country? Wait a minute - you live in Bama ;-) ;) [/b][/quote]
ROLL TIDE ROLL :rokk:

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by gigi@Nov 3 2004, 10:53 AM
A nurse who 'enjoys writing about politics'.....okay, so at least we know where this is coming from...lol
Yep, a great example of writing ... from a person who spends her time sticking thermometers up people's anuses and sniffing too much ether. :yowsa:

One good thing about conservative extremist Republicans and their sickening gloating, any time the shit hits the fan in the next four years -- and it will -- a LOT! -- we'll be back in your face rightfully blaming you all. :)

... Then we'll get to watch you slither away from Bush's side and pretend you don't know him. Something to look forward to! :moon:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by dantheman+Nov 3 2004, 12:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dantheman @ Nov 3 2004, 12:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 3 2004, 11:41 AM
Death might be a little strong, but it's in ICU for sure :)
Would you really like living in an all Republican country? Wait a minute - you live in Bama ;-) ;)
ROLL TIDE ROLL :rokk: [/b][/quote]
I never told you that my father did his bootcamp in Mobile. He said that he was in a store on a Saturday and actually saw some ladies crying when Bama lost a football game. Now THOSE are fans.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 3 2004, 12:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 3 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 3 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 11:45 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 3 2004, 11:41 AM
Death might be a little strong, but it's in ICU for sure :)
Would you really like living in an all Republican country? Wait a minute - you live in Bama ;-) ;)
ROLL TIDE ROLL :rokk:
I never told you that my father did his bootcamp in Mobile. He said that he was in a store on a Saturday and actually saw some ladies crying when Bama lost a football game. Now THOSE are fans. [/b][/quote]
Colin, you have no idea what it means around here. I'm in the middle of if and it still baffles me sometimes. But there's nothing like the Bamanation in any sport
imho:) AND, this year the basketball team has a chance to make some noise, that'll be nice to see again. I'm getting pumped for hoops :)

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist. [/b][/quote]
:ph34r:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.
:ph34r: [/b][/quote]
The Republicans have been dead since '64 and '76; the Democrats have been dead since '72 and '84.

Gloat on, Danny, and enjoy it while you can.

Anyone want to take bets on what Bush's popularity ratings will be by March 15?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.
:ph34r:
The Republicans have been dead since '64 and '76; the Democrats have been dead since '72 and '84.

Gloat on, my friend, and enjoy it while you can.

Anyone want to take bets on what Bush's popularity ratings will be by March 15? [/b][/quote]
Did you mean to quote me?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 3 2004, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 3 2004, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.
:ph34r:
The Republicans have been dead since '64 and '76; the Democrats have been dead since '72 and '84.

Gloat on, my friend, and enjoy it while you can.

Anyone want to take bets on what Bush's popularity ratings will be by March 15?
Did you mean to quote me? [/b][/quote]
Nope.

[Mike AI]

I woudl prefer if the Democratic party got back to the party that my family belonged to. They need to get away from the crazed leftist, the blame America first crowd, the UN-internationalists....

I know many sane Democrats - most of them vote for Republicans on National Elections because the party has gone to far to the left.

Kerry is a taller Dukakis. Yankee Liberals do not have mass appeal outside the North and West.

Democrats have become the minority party. If it was not for Ross Perot, even Clinton would not have been President.

I hope they come back.... diversity of parties and ideas is good for the country!

[dantheman]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.
:ph34r:
The Republicans have been dead since '64 and '76; the Democrats have been dead since '72 and '84.

Gloat on, Danny, and enjoy it while you can.

Anyone want to take bets on what Bush's popularity ratings will be by March 15? [/b][/quote]
not gloating at all. Just thougth the lady had some good points, the Dems need some help.
Everyone knows my thinking and why I COULD NOT support or even consider Kerry as CIC...He's a traitor, did more to harm soldiers in harms way than anyone this side of the ho chi men trail. It had nothing to do with Dems or repubs in my head and heart.

:salute:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM
March 15
Clever

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 3 2004, 02:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 3 2004, 10:40 AM
No way. The last two elections show a nearly 50/50 split populace.
The parties change their views in order to win more votes.

Without an opposing the party, the Republic would be dead.
Communist.
:ph34r:
The Republicans have been dead since '64 and '76; the Democrats have been dead since '72 and '84.

Gloat on, Danny, and enjoy it while you can.

Anyone want to take bets on what Bush's popularity ratings will be by March 15? [/b][/quote]


Who cares what his popularity will be? Bush has no more elections to win.

PD I know its hard for you to understand, but Bush does things not to be popular, but because he thinks it is the right thing to do. It is called leadership. Anyone can take polls, and flip flop.

[Mike AI]

Danny, enjoy the victory. One reason Kerry was defeated was because of Vietnam Vets standing up against him. I am proud of all these guys. Maybe NOW we can finally get past the defeatism of Vietnam!!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 03:28 PM
Who cares what his popularity will be? Bush has no more elections to win.

PD I know its hard for you to understand, but Bush does things not to be popular, but because he thinks it is the right thing to do. It is called leadership. Anyone can take polls, and flip flop.
I'm not suggesting that Bush has or should convene focus groups to determine what he should or should not do, always with an eye on his polling numbers.

But Mike, if you think don't think the popularity of a President has an impact on his ability to govern and to push forward his agenda, you have an even more shallow knowledge and understanding of American history than I give you credit for.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 3 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 3 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 3 2004, 03:28 PM
Who cares what his popularity will be? Bush has no more elections to win.

PD I know its hard for you to understand, but Bush does things not to be popular, but because he thinks it is the right thing to do. It is called leadership. Anyone can take polls, and flip flop.
I'm not suggesting that Bush has or should convene focus groups to determine what he should or should not do, always with an eye on his polling numbers.

But Mike, if you think don't think the popularity of a President has an impact on his ability to govern and to push forward his agenda, you have an even more shallow knowledge and understanding of American history than I give you credit for. [/b][/quote]


I understand PD, that is why I will repost these numbers for you.

Bush is first President to get majority of popular votes since 1988. ( Clinton did not get it)

Bush got more total votes then Reagan got in his landslide. ( obviously there are more people/voters now)

Republican's added to their majority in Senate and House.

JFK said a one vote win is a mandate. (JFK won with less votes nation wide then Bush won with in Ohio)

Bush vanquished his #1 problem in Senate with Dashle being booted.


Now I hope Bush can cut gov't spending. This is my number one concern with a Bush admin - they keep expanding gov't programs. I do not want Bush to be arrogent, but rather stay focused on the ball. Terrorism, tax cuts ( flat tax?), tort reform, fixing social security, all big issues that Bush can leave a great Bush legacy!

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, I've had my television and radio on all morning, so I've heard all this bullshit before ... your numbers are absolutely meaningless.

Bush is first President to get majority of popular votes since 1988..
That is grasping at straws. Bush won by a majority. So the fuck what. There was no effective third party in the race this time. Clinton DID get more votes than his other TWO opponents in both of his elections, something it took Bush two tries to do.

Bush got more total votes then Reagan got in his landslide.
Like you said, obviously there are more people/voters now. Andrew Jackson got more votes than Thomas Jefferson. William McKinnley (probably) got more votes than U. S. Grant. Herbert Hoover got more votes than Woodrow Wilson. Lyndon Johnson got more votes than Franklin Roosevelt.

Whoopty-fucking-doo.

Republican's added to their majority in Senate and House.
Gains in the house were marginal. It remains to be seen whether the gains in the Senate will amount to much. Most of the southern Democrats who lost were the very same people the Republicans would appeal to to get the 60 they need to close debate on a topic. A couple of the Republicans elected are very likely to end up labeled R.I.N.O. before we get too far into the next Congress.

Because of the narrow majorities the Republicans have, particularly in the Senate, an awful lot is going to depend on party discipline. In spite of his "mandate", Bush has got pretty much the same problems he had before the election, if not more.

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 3 2004, 08:24 AM
"The death of the Democratic Party". I remember hearing about that in 1992 right before Clinton took 8 years. The problem for the Democratic party is not in getting Democrats elected, it is in getting northern Democrats elected.
:pearl:

[dantheman]

MY VIEW
I tried to tell you . . .
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

Published on: 11/04/04

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.
EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
MOST POPULAR


This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

[PornoDoggy]

Wow. Zell Miller thinks the Democrats are dead.

I'll bet Quisling wasn't very impressed with the Nazi party toward the end, either.

[kre8t0r]

I'm sure all the Bush supporters will just love the Patriot Act II. I mean to be safe we can't have these silly freedoms our constitution mentions.... What fun would that be.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/Natio...m?ID=16491&c=24 (http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=16491&c=24)

BTW I will say one thing for the administration, they are super slick! One of the biggest topics we talk about lately is the NEW and IMPROVED 2257. I think it was a huge step to getting rid of this thing we call voting if you take something called "revision" which is used to clear up any "small" problems with a wording issue and turn that into the power to CHANGE the whole meaning of the original without even having to worry about a vote.... I wonder what other legal tricks they can think up in 4 years.

Sorry Dan, I have spent a lot of time in "Bama" lately (NW area) and haven't seen a bigger bunch of bible thumping sheep in my life. :(

Flame on as I know any republican will have to blast me for this... Just an FYI I belong to neither party, I vote for common sense. :headwall:

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by kre8t0r@Nov 5 2004, 12:15 AM
Flame on as I know any republican will have to blast me for this... Just an FYI I belong to neither party, I vote for common sense. :headwall:
Common sense? LMAO! Oooh you took a wrong turn into the wrong place then! :yowsa:

Seriously though, good to see ya, kre8t0r! Welcome to Animal Farm! :)

[kre8t0r]

Hey Dravyk! I know sense is a rare thing these days huh....lol :yowsa:

[grimm]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 4 2004, 10:28 AM
Wow. Zell Miller thinks the Democrats are dead.

I'll bet Quisling wasn't very impressed with the Nazi party toward the end, either.
Zell miller is nuttier than an elephants shit:)

[dantheman]

Originally posted by kre8t0r@Nov 5 2004, 12:15 AM
I'm sure all the Bush supporters will just love the Patriot Act II. I mean to be safe we can't have these silly freedoms our constitution mentions.... What fun would that be.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/Natio...m?ID=16491&c=24 (http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=16491&c=24)

BTW I will say one thing for the administration, they are super slick! One of the biggest topics we talk about lately is the NEW and IMPROVED 2257. I think it was a huge step to getting rid of this thing we call voting if you take something called "revision" which is used to clear up any "small" problems with a wording issue and turn that into the power to CHANGE the whole meaning of the original without even having to worry about a vote.... I wonder what other legal tricks they can think up in 4 years.

Sorry Dan, I have spent a lot of time in "Bama" lately (NW area) and haven't seen a bigger bunch of bible thumping sheep in my life. :(

Flame on as I know any republican will have to blast me for this... Just an FYI I belong to neither party, I vote for common sense. :headwall:
welcome kre8t0r, did you expect anything different :))

I'm not a repub(not enough money in the bank, I'm not a dem(not liberal enough) I do vote with common sence. I have enough sence to know that I couldnt vote for a traitor. That's all I thought about. Not to mention we didnt need a ANTI military man in office at this moment in our history.

[Almighty Colin]

Oh, come on guys. Bush stumbled over the finish line. The election was one state away from Kerry winning. There's the same cultural divide in the country that there was 4 years ago. I think only one state changed hands.

Dan, who was the last Democrat you voted for?

I don't think Patriot Act II will pass. They've been shopping that around for years. They are having a difficult time getting support for it. Ashcroft will be gone anyway.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 5 2004, 10:13 AM
Oh, come on guys. Bush stumbled over the finish line. The election was one state away from Kerry winning. There's the same cultural divide in the country that there was 4 years ago. I think only one state changed hands.

Dan, who was the last Democrat you voted for?

I don't think Patriot Act II will pass. They've been shopping that around for years. They are having a difficult time getting support for it. Ashcroft will be gone anyway.
shelby for senate..................that was before he moved over to the other side : ))
The south used to be all Dem, untill the they move away from the way folks think down south. One BIG problem the Dems have is a they DONT appeal to those folks that have faith,morals, and nationalism. IMHO : )


oh, and before serge jumps on me about being reborn, you dont have to be a peacher or deacon to have faith and morals : ))))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:23 AM



oh, and before serge jumps on me about being reborn, you dont have to be a peacher or deacon to have faith and morals : ))))
Dan,
please tell us EVERYTHING about YOUR morals.

you can start with answering this simple question:
how many cents out of every dollar you earn smell of pussy, fucks, shits, etc?

..and how does it reconcile with your morals?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:23 AM
The south used to be all Dem, untill the they move away from the way folks think down south. One BIG problem the Dems have is a they DONT appeal to those folks that have faith,morals, and nationalism. IMHO : )
I agree that there is a cultural divide. Northerners and Southerners don't relate. Northerners are just downright backwards about the relationship if you ask me. All the "redneck/inbred" stuff is just retarded. Someone from New York hears a Southern accent and automatically assumes that person is stupid.

Southern Democrats can do very well in the South. Carter did great in the South in 1976, for example.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 5 2004, 10:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 5 2004, 10:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:23 AM



oh, and before serge jumps on me about being reborn, you dont have to be a peacher or deacon to have faith and morals : ))))
Dan,
please tell us EVERYTHING about YOUR morals.

you can start with answering this simple question:
how many cents out of every dollar you earn smell of pussy, fucks, shits, etc?

..and how does it reconcile with your morals? [/b][/quote]
serge, I dont have a problem with pussy,fucking and sex............Some of my favorite things to do : ))) and I cant really anwser your question, I've never broke it down that way : ))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by dantheman+Nov 5 2004, 10:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dantheman @ Nov 5 2004, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 5 2004, 10:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:23 AM



oh, and before serge jumps on me about being reborn, you dont have to be a peacher or deacon to have faith and morals : ))))
Dan,
please tell us EVERYTHING about YOUR morals.

you can start with answering this simple question:
how many cents out of every dollar you earn smell of pussy, fucks, shits, etc?

..and how does it reconcile with your morals?
serge, I dont have a problem with pussy,fucking and sex............Some of my favorite things to do : ))) and I cant really anwser your question, I've never broke it down that way : )) [/b][/quote]
Dan,
ask your pastor for help,
he'll be delighted to help you out.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 5 2004, 10:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 5 2004, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 5 2004, 10:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 5 2004, 10:23 AM



oh, and before serge jumps on me about being reborn, you dont have to be a peacher or deacon to have faith and morals : ))))
Dan,
please tell us EVERYTHING about YOUR morals.

you can start with answering this simple question:
how many cents out of every dollar you earn smell of pussy, fucks, shits, etc?

..and how does it reconcile with your morals?
serge, I dont have a problem with pussy,fucking and sex............Some of my favorite things to do : ))) and I cant really anwser your question, I've never broke it down that way : ))
Dan,
ask your pastor for help,
he'll be delighted to help you out. [/b][/quote]
as soon as he gets though building some galleries for me I'll ask him ; )))

[Nickatilynx]

morals???

Everyone has the morals...


awww you all know! ;-)))