• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why yes, we DO think we'll get the power back, heh-heh!

PerryLogan

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
23
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you took away their incredible cash advantage--would anyone even hear of the Republican Party?

Up to now, the battle between right & left has been a true David & Goliath story. You've probably heard the figures; Republicans outspend Democrats by three to five times, sometimes much more.

The right needs that huge cash advantage to snow America & distract voters from the fact that every right-wing policy that has ever been tried has failed catastrophically.

But look at this story! When the Democrats raise more campaign money than the GOP, you know we're in Bizarro World:

GOP Trails Democrats in Senate Fundraising

WASHINGTON - The Republican committee that handles Senate campaigns picked up the pace in fundraising in February but still trails its rival Democratic committee by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
ADVERTISEMENT

The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $5.5 million in February, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $3.8 million.

Democrats still hold a big advantage on money in the bank with $27.4 million, while Republicans have $14.5 million.
I guess no one wants to donate to a candidate who's going to jail.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
PerryLogan said:
If you took away their incredible cash advantage--would anyone even hear of the Republican Party?

Up to now, the battle between right & left has been a true David & Goliath story. The right needs that huge advantage to distract America from the fact that all of its policies fail so catastrophically.

But look at this story! When the Democrats raise more campaign money than the GOP, you know we're in Bizarro World:

GOP Trails Democrats in Senate Fundraising



I guess no one wants to donate to a candidate who's going to jail.
We get it dude, you're ticked off because your beloved party has been defeated time and again, try some introspection, and less blame............wait, you're Howard Dean aren't you?:rofl

Oh, and you asked what have the Republicans every done, well........ they really pi$$ed you liberals off, and that's worth every cent, wait, where is my checkbook!:lol:
 
Last edited:

PerryLogan

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
23
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ticked off? Moi? I'm enjoying the short-lived Republican Reich immensely, my friend.

It would be funnier if so many people weren't getting hurt.

Don't sneer, brother. I was just sharing some news you were certain to miss. I've noticed neocons tend to miss most of the news.

Personal hygiene note: chewing on the stale gum of fraudlent victory is bad for your health. Haven't you chewed the juice out of that yet, or are you stuck in the past?
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
PerryLogan said:
Ticked off? Moi? I'm enjoying the short-lived Replican Reich immensely, my friend.

It would be hilarious, if so many people weren't getting hurt.

Just sharing some news you were certain to miss. I've noticed neocons tend to miss most of the news.

Personal hygiene note: chewing on the stale gum of fraudlent victory is bad for your health. Haven't you chewed the juice out of that yet, or are you stuck in the past?
Actually I am stuck in the past, and I still enjoy the Republican policy that brought down the USSR, everytime I think of those 8 wonderful years, it brings a burst of cherry flavor to my gum once again.;)
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
my life began in 1968 - since then the presidents we've had have been:

1969 - 1974 --- Nixon (republican)
1974 - 1977 --- Ford (republican)
1977 - 1981 --- Carter (democrat)
1981 - 1989 --- Reagan (republican)
1989 - 1993 --- Bush, G.H.W. (republican)
1993 - 2001 --- Clinton (democrat)
2001 - present --- Bush, G.W. (republican)

in the last 37 years we've had a democrat in the whitehouse for 12 years and a republican for 25. while it may change hands momentarily I don't really believe the dems will gain much in real control. even with the democratic party being the larger of the two major parties they can't gain enough votes to control the whitehouse a majority of the time. do you really believe they can gain control of congress?
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
1969 - 1974 --- Nixon (republican)
1974 - 1977 --- Ford (republican)
1977 - 1981 --- Carter (democrat)
1981 - 1989 --- Reagan (republican)
1989 - 1993 --- Bush, G.H.W. (republican)
1993 - 2001 --- Clinton (democrat)
2001 - present --- Bush, G.W. (republican)
According to this list, (two Rep-one Dem-two Rep-one Dem) we should expect another Republican in the House next. I think you are holding on to false hopes PerryLogan :mrgreen:
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ThePhoenix said:
According to this list, (two Rep-one Dem-two Rep-one Dem) we should expect another Republican in the House next. I think you are holding on to false hopes PerryLogan :mrgreen:
well...if we look at the pattern we might be in store for a one term dem...

before Nixon & Ford there was an eight year dem in the white house (combination of Kennedy & Johnson)...then Nixon & Ford combined for eight years...then we had four years of a dem (Carter)...then 12 years of a rep (Reagan & Bush)...then eight years of a dem (Clinton)...& now we're in the middle of eight years of a rep (Bush)..I figure next will be four years of a dem followed by 12 years of a rep.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
well...if we look at the pattern we might be in store for a one term dem...

before Nixon & Ford there was an eight year dem in the white house (combination of Kennedy & Johnson)...then Nixon & Ford combined for eight years...then we had four years of a dem (Carter)...then 12 years of a rep (Reagan & Bush)...then eight years of a dem (Clinton)...& now we're in the middle of eight years of a rep (Bush)..I figure next will be four years of a dem followed by 12 years of a rep.
OK, lets look at this closely. We have had since 1960 terms that have been the same;

8 years Dem
8 years Rep

Now, according to the odds, since Dem's doubled their term since carter from 4 to 8 years with Clinton, chances are Rep would double their terms from 12 to 24 years.

4 years Dem
12 years Rep
8 years Dem
(24 years Rep)?
Aaaay :mrgreen:

But, lets give the Dem's the benefit of the doubt and ask this; Does anyone know for a fact what the Democrats plan is for America that will give them this power that they covet so much...And who from the Democratic party is capable of holding this power?

As of yet, I have heard no real plans worth the paper to write it on from any Democratic politician.

By the way, I am not Democrat nor am I Republican
 
Last edited:

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ThePhoenix said:
OK, lets look at this closely. We have had since 1960 terms that have been the same;

8 years Dem
8 years Rep

Now, according to the odds, since Dem's doubled their term since carter from 4 to 8 years with Clinton, chances are Rep would double their terms from 12 to 24 years.

4 years Dem
12 years Rep
8 years Dem
(24 years Rep)?
Aaaay :mrgreen:

But, lets give the Dem's the benefit of the doubt and ask this; Does anyone know for a fact what the Democrats plan is for America that will give them this power that they covet so much...And who from the Democratic party is capable of holding this power?

As of yet, I have heard no real plans worth the paper to write it on from any Democratic politician.

By the way, I am not Democrat nor am I Republican
I'm not a rep nor dem either - BUT, it would be fun to watch the dems if reps landed a 24 year stronghold.

as for capable dems - you got: Uh? capable? Hilary? Chucky? :2rofll: :2funny:
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Suburban sprawl is exploding. Where there is suburbia/Middle America, there are conservatives. America is a mildly conservative country overall and has been steadily becoming moreso. If Democrats are ever going to be trusted to handle our national security again (after their bang up job with N. Korea, Al Queda, etc.) they will need to find something other than media-manufactured negativity against Bush to pull it off. Sentiment has been growing against their retreatist, "learn nothing from history" policies for years now. They need a message that can sell, but they are too fanatical these days for reasonable people to stomach.
 

PerryLogan

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
23
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This would be OK, if you weren't full of beans. Here's what a real President did against terrorism:

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
PerryLogan said:
This would be OK, if you weren't full of beans. Here's what a real President did against terrorism:

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

:rofl

Wow! That's the most bold attempt to reinvent a story of a criminally negligent career-felon-president I have ever seen!

"Real President!?!?!?"-I think I'm going to vomit.

Eight years of unanswered Al Queda attacks, appeasing North Korea, retreating from Bin Laden in Somalia-making him a hero, making it illegal for the FBI and CIA to communicate about terror risks, treating terrorism as a criminal matter instead of as a military one...and on...and on....and on.

Your link doesn't even pretend to be objective or unbiased.

(The hysterical, cliche, ENTIRELY WITHOUT EVIDENCE conspiracy theories about evil corporations working with Disney Villain Republicans should have been your first clue) :roll:

Between this and your "snotty kids" thread, I think you have annihilated your credibility and proved that you are a bitter, petty partisan with an axe to grind.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Come on, aquapub. Perry got all his information from truthout. It must be true. I here all the "snotty kids" read truthout.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
This might be the appropriate time to remind people of what certain people said when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/3/17167/05105
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
This might be the appropriate time to remind people of what certain people said when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:
Do you believe the ones who said those quotes were wrong THEN just as the Liberal contingency is NOW?

Or do you believe the Liberal contingency was right THEN making theses same people right NOW?

Does fence it...:cool:
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ThePhoenix said:
Does anyone know for a fact what the Democrats plan is for America that will give them this power that they covet so much...And who from the Democratic party is capable of holding this power?
Where is the Democrats plan for America? is this your Idea of a plan, to attack conservatives who makes up half or better of our country? I guess they all believe if you attack them long enough that eventually they could win what they do not deserve.

Fact is Dem's, are weak and have no plan, so therefore, is not fit to lead America.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
ThePhoenix said:
Where is the Democrats plan for America? is this your Idea of a plan, to attack conservatives who makes up half or better of our country? I guess they all believe if you attack them long enough that eventually they could win what they do not deserve.
Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.{sarcasm mode off} Seriously though, doesn't that sound like a crybaby argument for having nothing to contribute. "Waaah! No Fair! We're taking our ball and going home! Waaah!" Geez, how do they ever expect to gain political ground with "intellectual" , "sophisticated", and "solid" arguments like the one above.

Fact is Dem's, are weak and have no plan, so therefore, is not fit to lead America.
Don't worry, they're not responsible for "bad voting decisions by the public.":baby1 :roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Do you believe the ones who said those quotes were wrong THEN just as the Liberal contingency is NOW?

Or do you believe the Liberal contingency was right THEN making theses same people right NOW?

Does fence it...:cool:
I don't know enough about the Bosnia issue to say either way. There is something to be said about having a strategy. Thus, if Clinton had no strategy at the time he committed troops, then I agree with what the republicans were saying back then. I also agree with DeLay saying you can support the troops and NOT the prez.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
LaMidRighter said:
Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.
Would you please provide me evidence that a democrat or democrats said such a thing? Thank you.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LaMidRighter said:
Don't you remember though that they don't feel it's their responsibility to come up with a plan since they don't hold the majority.
Democrat and Responsibility does not compute, overload-overload


LaMidRighter said:
Seriously though, doesn't that sound like a crybaby argument for having nothing to contribute. "Waaah! No Fair! We're taking our ball and going home! Waaah!" Geez, how do they ever expect to gain political ground with "intellectual" , "sophisticated", and "solid" arguments like the one above.



LaMidRighter said:
Don't worry, they're not responsible for "bad voting decisions by the public.":baby1 :roll:
But they are to our young generation by brainwashing our children in the public schools.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Would you please provide me evidence that a democrat or democrats said such a thing? Thank you.
Aps, I certainly can understand why you posted those quotes, they do show a great deal of hypocrisy, just another reason I felt I had to leave the party. I am ashamed everytime I read those quotes, I was in favor of our actions in Bosnia, and I can't believe some of things that were said then, and now the reversal we see today. Still, as someone else mentioned, this does show the hypocrisy of both sides of the aisle, we should always be together on matters of military action, and this is not a time for partisan politics, especially when so many lives are at stake!
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
Aps, I certainly can understand why you posted those quotes, they do show a great deal of hypocrisy, just another reason I felt I had to leave the party. I am ashamed everytime I read those quotes, I was in favor of our actions in Bosnia, and I can't believe some of things that were said then, and now the reversal we see today. Still, as someone else mentioned, this does show the hypocrisy of both sides of the aisle, we should always be together on matters of military action, and this is not a time for partisan politics, especially when so many lives are at stake!
Hi Deegan. Thanks for sharing this because it's interesting to me. It is truly fascinating to me to see republicans making these assertions when they are now defending Bush for the very same deficiencies.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But they are to our young generation by brainwashing our children in the public schools.
I'm trying to remember which Democrat was recorded as saying that minority = no responsibility statement so that I can give a link to aps. Do you happen to remember who said it by any chance? I get so confused cause many of them sound alike. Great pic by the way.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
aps said:
Would you please provide me evidence that a democrat or democrats said such a thing? Thank you.
If I can remember who said it I will find a link.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LaMidRighter said:
I'm trying to remember which Democrat was recorded as saying that minority = no responsibility statement so that I can give a link to aps. Do you happen to remember who said it by any chance? I get so confused cause many of them sound alike. Great pic by the way.
Sorry, I don`t know, sounds like what pelosi or dean would say.



Dem/Libs, Where is your plan for America???
 
Top Bottom