« IS WAR A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO PROBLEMS BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC? | Main | Just this morning a Dad at my daughter's school said "I can't talk to you" because I wouldn't agree that Bush is horrible. »

October 21, 2004



I know, I feel the same way - and see many of the same things you stated. Hope may be that people are sick and tired of the Dems railroading to suit their needs... Also, people see the pandering and ultimate lies regarding voter intimidation, etc... (Bush is up double his stats among minority voters) As a Floridian, I can only hope that Bush wins by such a large margin, a re-count would be ridiculous.

The Ocean

My democrat friends talk to me about my affiliation like I need to be "cured." :-/


Because they have fallen out of touch and have no clue.

They had 60 years to run this country and they ran it straight into the ground. They have become a party of extremism and they grow more and more faint every 4 years and have no idea it is even happening.

When one has nothing intelligent to say, one yells!!


Desperation. The democrat party has degenerated into a loose band of social misfits with radical agendas. It is only the skillful manipulations of the DNC and the MSM that keep old fashioned real JFK dems from jumping ship. It is evident by the flip flops Kerry makes depending on his audience. They have done a spectacular job of pandering to the new dems without alienating the old dems. Of course I think that many of the old dems realize what is going on and it is only misguided loyalty and pre McGovern memories that keep them on the reservation.


I don't know if I've ever seen anyone on this post claim that GWB was perfect. A lot of folks here even disagree with him on certain issues. For me it comes down to leadership, and I don't see any of the qualities of a leader in Kerry and others like him.

Kerry's a career politician, which means his primary concern is getting elected, and he pursues that goal by promising to be everything to everyone. Like Clinton, he's driven by image consultants and focus groups - by definition, he 's not leading.

When was the last time GWB took time out of his day to hold a press conference to defend himself against any accuser? I can't think of any. His attitude seems to be "Say what you want about me, I have a job to do". This is leadership. Does he make mistakes? Sure. Is he stubborn? Probably. Does that make him a bad president? No. Agree with him or not, at least you know where he stands.

Being a leader means that at times people are going to disagree with you and even dislike you, but it's better than having an empty suit at the helm.


There are still alot of people in this world living like it's 9/10/2001, and unfortunately they don't get it and never will.

It's a lie and a distortion of history to say the nation "came together" after 9-11. Yes it did have an effect on liberals like Ron Silver, and many other nameless "9-11 Democrats". But it never effected the Michael Moore crowd.

Everyone has their own memories of 9-11, so let me share mine.

I was far away from where all the incidents occured, in Colorado. My wife was expecting, and my son was born only a week later on 9-17.

I woke up that morning, and turned on the TV as I was getting ready to go to work. The first plane had already hit, and I was thinking as most others were, that it was some kind of terrible accident. I said to myself, I hope they can get that fire out, and that they can save as many people as possible. Just a few minutes later I saw the second plane crash, and I thought I was watching a movie based on a Tom Clancy novel. I was in total disbelief when the first tower fell, and I just prayed that somehow people got out of that building.

I had no idea if my meeting for work was going to be cancelled that morning or not, but I drove into work, listening to the radio for any updates.

There was a local talk show host here in Denver, that was taking calls, and I will never forget this idiot who called in. He said, "it's not evil", and that "we have to look at this from their perspective." He said "we've been killing their people for years, and we thought we could get away with it," that "because of our support for Israel" we "deserved" what happened.

What amazed me in the following days, was this was not just some fringe lunatic, but he represented the general consensus of the whole Michel Moore crowd.

I remember reading on internet message boards, that "we shouldn't assume this was Osama Bin Laden, or militant Islamists. It's probably some white anglo saxon protestant who's mad at the government" and likened the event to , "the Oklahoma City bombing," instead of a terrorist attack.

This is the opinion of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, and it is growing day by day. They think we "deserve" what happened on 9-11. They think people like Yasser Arafat deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. They think people like Ted Rall are in the "mainstream"

No, unfortunately we were not united on 9-11. There was a cancer growing in America, and it has completely engulfed the Democratic party. People like Zell Miller have diagnosed that cancer and wish to have it cut off, while others like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy seek to appease this movement, to connect with it and to pander to it.

You all know, I am no fan of Micael Savage, but he was correct in saying on his program last night, "there is no choice" in this election. If you believe in America in what it stands for, you will vote for George W. Bush. If you don't, you are voting for the destruction of America, and don't think it won't happen either. I'm sure the Romans thought their nation was indistructable. The English said, "the sun never sets on the British Empire." Now they are merely scraps on the ash heap of history.


Democrats are so nasty now because Republicans and Conservatives have finally decided to fight back. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore and they're scared as hell and they don't know what else to do

Terribly Swift Sword

"Why are the Democrats so nasty now?"

The Party of John Kennedy has been slowly disintegrating over the past 40 years. Their empty promises of utopia in America have not come true despite 4 decades of so-called "progressive politics". The democrats' disintegration process has accelerated since they lost the House in 1994. They barely re-elected Clinton in 1996 (with the $$$ help of the Red Chinese) and then desperately attempted to abscond with the Presidency in 2000. In 2002 they lost the Senate and have been losing favour in the American Street ever since. Today a majority of state Governorships are Republican. The democRATS only hope of regaining any political power now is to retake the White House; and now they see that possibility slipping away. Do you know how a RAT acts when it is cornered and there is no way out? That's what is happening with the Liberals in America today. Tsk, tsk

O's Fan

I seem to remember it's the Democrats (not 527's: Kerry, Edwards their supporters and their campaign staff) who have:

1.) Forced their way into GOP offices and caused disruption.

2.) Discussed Mary Cheney's sexual orientation for political gain.

3.) Had the VP candidates wife make assumptions about the relationship between Lynn Cheney and her daughter in a disparaging way.

4.) Tore a sign from a small girl in West Virginia.

5.) Had an elected official refer to the President as brain dead.

6.) Accused the President of shirking his duties in the Texas Air National Guard without a shred of physical evidence.

7.) Had the Presidential candidates wife make disparraging remarks about the 1st lady.

I could go on and on but I'm bored with this already......


"“Did you see Fahrenheit 911?” is the most common question they ask."

Yeah, my cousin threw that at me, as if Michael Moore is some kind of infallible prophet to be listened to and not questioned at all. I don't know why they're so nasty, Adrian. I've wondered about that myself. I'm in publishing, and I like my colleagues, but I can't stand to hear them talk about the Leftist views. I cringe whenever they bring up their darling Kerry and they start in on President Bush. I have a rule to try and avoid talking politics at work, knowing it will lead to a war, but I wish they'd follow the same rule. I don't know if it's me, but lately when I hear LSDs talking, it's like they're all in the same religion and they've all studied the same LSD Bible, because they seem to repeat the same lines, more or less. It's getting a little spooky.


"I can’t talk about the election with one of my best friends of 20 years.

When I ask “Give me a reason to vote for Kerry that isn’t based in how bad Bush is?” they shut up.


I don't know what the solution is, my friend. I am 57 years old and I met my best friend when I was 7...The same time I met another very good friend of 50 years.

They are both 'good Americans', but when I try and tell either one of them about Kerry's treasonist activities, they go bonkers.

These two guys would NEVER lie to me EXCEPT when it comes to their politics....It's incredible. And I don't know how to deal with their, "I don't care if Kerry will destroy America, he is a Democrat and I am going to vote for him," attitude.

Amazing, isn't it?


I've learned that the best way to deal with people who won't listen to you is to ignore the problem. There's this one girl in my Bio and Government classes who regards Farenheit 9-11 as greater than the Bible. I've tried to reason with her, but she just spouts "If you haven't seen farenheit 9-11, then you're not informed, and I don't care about your opinion."... and this is when I'm discussing domestic issues.

In my area, the Bush-Cheney signs are all torn down by tresspassers, but no one dares to touch a Kerry/Edwards sign. Outspoken conservatives are ostracized in schools, workplaces, and places of worship- not to mention the community on the whole. Then they complain about Republican censorship, when they're really just telling the conservatives to shove it.

I'm going to follow my own advice, and not start arguing. As hard as it is, I will keep my fingers busy doing something else.


"BUT Kerry also said that he would not have rushed to war as the White House did."

I was hoping you'd say that.

What rush to war are we talking about? Oh, that's right. This war took THIRTEEN YEARS (I believe - I may be having a blonde moment, even being brunette) to "rush" to. During that time, the UN kept pussyfooting around with Saddam and he kept violating the sanctions. This went on for years, Sane. You're an intelligent guy & you know that. President Bush "rushed" to war by going first to the United Nations and appealing to other countries, bringing over 60 nations onboard as our allies. But they're not good enough because they're not France, Germany, or Russia, according to Jean-Francois Kerry.

That's what Kerry's really talking about, too. That's plain as day. France, Germany, and Russia weren't onboard. Well, France, Germany, and Russia were lining their pockets with the UN's corrupt Oil-For-Food program, while the Iraqi people that Kerry and his squads care SO much about starved and were put through meat grinders and were tortured in front of their kids.

So they can say "rush to war" all they want, but what this is really about is the end of some very evil and corrupt men (i.e., Shroeder, Putin & the French cretin) losing their sugar daddy, who threatened the U.S. more than once.


I think the reason is basic, and disturbing: hating people for a cause is fun.

Many Republicans are Christians (I won't speak for those that aren't -- but I think they have their own defense against hating for a cause, possibly that thing we call "individualism"? or some other basis), and we have far too much from the Founder of our faith about pride and hate, to think that adopting a cause gives us license to hate. I know some of us manage it anyway. I have hated people. But I knew it was wrong; I couldn't congratulate myself on my hatred -- I knew it was something to be ashamed of. So it wasn't as much fun.

I read in one of Alice Miller's books about a young woman who said, when anti-Semitism started really kicking in in 1930's Germany, it felt so wonderful to her. She had so much anger, and here was a group she could focus it on, and people would praise her for it!

The kind of rage I hear from liberals (in real life; in media, I think it's whatever the media org thinks will best manipulate us) is like this. Their anger is someone else's fault; usually Bush's, these days. They aren't angry or hateful people. It's all him.

This is echoed in Kerry/Edwards rhetoric: they divide the nation with their message of hatred of Bush, thus proving not that they are divisive and hateful, but that Bush is.


Why are the Democrats so nasty now? Easy. They can smell the paradigm shift. The country is moving right and their (the liberals') failed promises and legacy of crime and social disasters have come home to roost. And the American people are speaking their voices -witness the 2002 elections. A preview of things to come.

The worst thing that could have happened to the liberals in this country was 9/11. Not for the reasons the rest of us think, but for the fact that Americans for the most part have awoken from the slumber of affluence and ignorance and now the torch has been delivered to this generation. We're in the fight for our lives here and it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to openly address which is that liberals will not protect us from Islamic terror. Our very existence is at stake here and it's not funny anymore.

In addition, we've seen decades of failure as presented by the Left (War on Poverty, War on Crime, lack of national defense/intelligence) and it takes time, but people get a collective kick in the ass and they wake up. The power of the 1960s liberals is being slowly eradicated. That is why the Democrats are so nasty now. They see the writing on the wall.


Just tell me this . . when are the Democrats ever NOT nasty?

Oh, I forgot. It's OK for them to say this stuff, but it's not OK for us conservatives.


"Why are the Democrats so nasty now?"

I bet a lot of the Kerry campaign volunteers thought their efforts would be rewarded with some nice cushy government job after Kerry got elected. I'm not talking about cabinet level positions. Just a nice secure job with a pension. With Bush leading in many polls they are starting to think that they wasted their time.

It seems like a lot of liberals don't really care about our country. They just want to legalize weed and keep the welfare flowing. The threat of having to earn a living really pisses them off.


Hey, give the dems a break, afterall:

It's George Bushs fault that they hate him so much.


"Hey, give the dems a break, afterall:

It's George Bushs fault that they hate him so much."

Yeah, it's always Bush that's the scapegoat. Thing is.. IF they win... who the hell are they gonna blame when their agenda isn't working?? But I see Bush winning this election. You can't run a country built on a foundation of hatred and Bush-bashing.


This “rush to war” charge is one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard in more than 50 years! It’s PURE politics and nothing else; there isn’t an ounce of truth in it anywhere, and even John Kerry knows that down deep, somewhere. People like Sane, who repeat it mindlessly, are just as guilty as the politicians of polluting the air with nonsense.

I’m not going to respond to it categorically, because others have already mentioned the 13 years we wasted, trying to let the sanctions and the inspectors “do their work.” Others have mentioned the long litany of UN resolutions that were totally ignored by Saddam, over which the UN (supposedly the most authoritative and highly respected body of nations in the entire universe) did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Any parent knows that a naughty child will just get worse if the promised punishment never materializes, yet the UN did NOTHING for 13 long years while Saddam thumbed his nose! And our own “leader,” President William Jefferson Clinton, was one of the worst – Saddam almost literally told him to go to hell and he just smiled and said, “Okay, I will!”

We have not had a president like George Bush since Harry Truman, who was a Democrat but was also laughed at by the intelligentsia just as George Bush has been, because he was “common,” “unsophisticated,” a “low-brow” with no breeding, and not even a very good speaker. He had a high voice that sounded like the whine of a saw blade, and a Missouri accent that made it worse. But Truman before him, and George Bush today, had two or three things that no Democrat and precious few Republicans since then (with the possible exceptions of Eisenhower and Reagan) have had.

Like Truman, Bush has integrity. His mother won’t have to yell it into his face as she dies; it’s already in his soul. Also like Truman, Bush is a far more intelligent and far better educated man than most of his detractors – he just doesn’t make a fetish of it because he doesn’t NEED their admiration to validate himself.

Most important of all, Bush has a genuine sense of compassion, which is why it was RIGHT for us to go into Iraq when we did, and would have been WRONG for us to wait any longer, because the country I grew up in HAD THAT SAME SENSE OF COMPASSION for many, many years. It’s almost gone now – all we hear is “what’s good for us” and never “what’s good for the whole world all at once,” but we were a far different country five or six decades ago. We could not have won WWII with people like John Kerry running the show, and “citizens” like John Edwards manning the barricades. The people of that era – my grandparents and parents – knew when civilization was being threatened, just as it is again. The difference is that they also knew what to do about it, and they were willing even though it cost them thousands of their sons and daughters.

Ah well, I know I’m wasting my time, but to get a different perspective on this, Sane, why don’t you take a trip to Iraq and try talking to the thousands and thousands of people who would have been tortured and killed by now, by Saddam and his sadistic sons if we hadn’t taken them out. Try telling THEM that we came into the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. Try telling THEM that we “rushed to judgment,” that we “overcommitted” ourselves; that we didn’t wait long enough for the UN to “work things out.”

Granted, so far we have traded the lives of 1000 American soldiers for the lives of perhaps 100,000 Iraqis, which is a 100-to-1 ratio but STILL hard for us to take. Or maybe 500,000 Iraqis would be dead by now; who knows? But I ask you point blank, Sane, using the lower figure, “Would you or would you not be willing to lay down your life to save 100 other people?”

Thank God that we still have soldiers who will. Who are you to deny them the honor and dignity they deserve for doing so, by telling their families that their sons’ and daughters’ lives were “wasted” in a “rush-to-judgment,” “war for oil” that never should have happened?

“Rush to war” indeed! Tell me, Sir, when the firemen ran back into the Twin Towers in New York, to face certain death in the hope that perhaps they could somehow save someone else, would you have been standing on the sidewalk admonishing those brave men NOT to “rush in” and save anybody because they might get hurt? Or, worse yet, not to go because it might cost them part of their retirement money?

Likewise, try telling the Iraqi people who were starving to death because of the millions and millions of dollars the UN “leaders” were stealing from their oil-for-food program that we asinine, impetuous, full-of-ourselves Americans should have waited another year, or two, or six, or nine, or THIRTEEN before we actually DID something rather than just talking semi-tough, which is the one thing Clinton had a doctorate in.

Beyond all that, when you’re the most civilized, the most technologically advanced, the most blessed by God, the most intelligent, the most capable, and the most compassionate nation on Earth you automatically have responsibilities to the rest of the world.

Nothing in this world is free. We are the best, but with that distinction comes a certain responsibility to save other lives, heal other wounds, bear other burdens, and yes, pay with our own money – and sometimes even our own lives -- for the health and safety of OTHERS besides ourselves in this world. Granted, none of us has that divine wisdom that would enable us to be right all the time, to do only GOOD things for the rest of the world, to be only decent and caring all the time.

But I believe George Bush is AT LEAST as wise as John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Sandy Berger all mixed together. I know for DAMN sure that he’s 100 times more honest, 1000 times more loyal, and God-only-knows how many times more truly caring.

Nonetheless, the day we Americans forget that God has given us all these blessings to be USED for GOOD in the world is the day we become just another used-up, has-been, third-world country.

And frankly, I am terribly afraid, based on what I’m hearing from the Dimocrats and their supporters, and especially from the insane Bush-bashing I’ve been hearing for the last four years, that it might already be too late.

We are a country that no longer extends basic decency, fundamental human kindness, in our relations with one another. It goes without saying that we can’t possibly appreciate or promote what we don’t even know about anymore.



Two more words: LOSING CONTROL

Two final words: CONTROLLED MINDS


I see the reason as desperation. 9-11 changed the country to bring out what I consider the best in America. Part of this is taking charge of our own destiny. We're not waiting for the terrorists to come to us any more. This is completely contrary to the Democratic philosophy, which is let the government take care of you. Sadly, the democratic elite is terrified of people being able to make up their own minds. Its very much the, "We know what's best for you" mentality.

Republicans may not be perfect, but we're realists. Democrats can't seem to be able to admit that it would not be a perfect world under their rule. If fact, that's probably the real stem of their desperation. When you live with the delusion that you know what's best for all mankind, you will fight tooth and nail against anything that challenges that delusion. Otherwise you may have to see the truth, and admit you are not perfect.



"Why are the Democrats so nasty now?"

I think it's based largely on their anger of their loss of power at the federal level. When they had control of at least one house of Congress or the White House it was easier to put on an act. Now that they have lost so much power they can't contain their hate any longer. Also, during the past 4 years they have lost a significant amount of power in the mainstream media. Look at the CBS memogate fiasco as proof that they no longer hold a complete monopoly on the flow of information. The past 4 years has also seen some on the Hollywood left pummeled for their ignorant or anti-American remarks. Before the internet and the popularity of information sources outside the mainstream, these outburts either went unheard or got little traction with the public. The only thing the left still has complete dominion over is the sheltered bubble of academia - but how much longer can that last?

Godot showed up

Assuming the Dems can't engineer enough fake ballots to steal the election outright, and that they're on the losing end of the numbers as they head into court, and if the Dems tie up the election results in court too long--that is, beyond December 13, when the electors meet--then this gets thrown to Congress. The House chooses the President, the Senate the Vice President. We need a majority of House delegations--26--and we'll have it. Same in the Senate. So in this scenario they lose.

Office mediafire download

I can see you have good knowledge on the issue. I enjoyed the read. Keep up the good work.

The comments to this entry are closed.