Democrat Underground- 911 conspiracy

[Calabrio]

Democrat Underground. If you've never heard of it before, it's the website where the Democrat parties base really communicate their true feelings without the censorship necessary when around clear thinking people.

But every once in a while, one of them will flex their mental muscle and use their critical thinking skills to better understand an event:

911 Conspiracy

This guy should get a government job.

But while, thankfully, there are some criticism, the link is full of responses like:
This confirms what I've suspected all along
Fire didn't bring those buildings down. Bush did it.

 

[TheDude]

Democrat Underground. If you've never heard of it before, it's the website where the Democrat parties base really communicate their true feelings without the censorship necessary when around clear thinking people.

That was a cheap shot... One website doesn't speak for everyone.

But, that link was funny, chicken wire, cinder blocks and kerosene, oh my.

 

[fossten]

That was a cheap shot... One website doesn't speak for everyone.

But, that link was funny, chicken wire, cinder blocks and kerosene, oh my.

Wasn't a cheap shot...

The main base of the Dem Party is quickly becoming the left kook fringe. Those guys spend time on DailyKos and DU.

 

[TheDude]

Wasn't a cheap shot...

Yes it was, damn it!

The main base of the Dem Party is quickly becoming the left kook fringe. Those guys spend time on DailyKos and DU.

Lies and slander...

 

[Calabrio]

Yes it was, damn it!

No, it wasn't a cheap shot it is the truth. Realize that all people who lean Democrat don't constitute the base. But if you wonder how guys like Howard Dean become DNC chairman and the party is concerned that Hillary has become too "moderate"- check out DemocratUnderground, Moveon.org, and DailyKos.

I'm intentionally not making a cheap shot, I'm making a completely valid and validated observation. Think about the involvement and money MoveOn.org interjected into the 2004 election.

Lies and slander...

No, it really, unfortunately, is not. It's absolutely true.

If you don't believe me, ask Phil and Johnny what they think of DailyKos.
Which you may remember is where this quote originated from, commenting on the gruesome public ambush and murders of four American citizens in Fallujah (April,2004):

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

 

[fossten]

Lies and slander...

Explain to me why John Kerry and Jack Murtha recently posted on Huff -N- Puff, then.

 

[TheDude]

Explain to me why John Kerry and Jack Murtha recently posted on Huff -N- Puff, then.

Hell if I know, I don't visit that website nor do I visit 'DU' or 'moveon' etc. etc.

Having said that, I do not believe the main base of the Democratic party are far left kooks. Sure there are some bad apples, but you get that in any group.

 

[Calabrio]

Hell if I know, I don't visit that website nor do I visit 'DU' or 'moveon' etc. etc.

I don't think any of us would consider you part of the Democrat party base. Phil and JohnnyB, that's a different story.

Having said that, I do not believe the main base of the Democratic party are far left kooks. Sure there are some bad apples, but you get that in any group.

Again, this is the problem. They are. And their influence comes in part due to their sheer numbers, but mainly because of their organization and ability to raise money.

This is why the Democrat party keeps moving farther and farther out to the fringe. This is why Howard Dean was made chairman of the DNC (hardly a center left fellow). And this is why whoever wants the Democratic nomination in 2008 will probably have to move so far to the left in order to secure the nomination, that they will alienate the rest of the country in the process.

Don't be mistaken, things are not rosey for the Democrat party. They can't even exploit the weaknesses or the Republican party because those vocal, organized, and well funded loons are hijacking the parties agenda.

Again, just remember how much influence MoveOn.org and the other 527s had in the 2004 election.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I don't think any of us would consider you part of the Democrat party base. Phil and JohnnyB, that's a different story.

If you don't believe me, ask Phil and Johnny what they think of DailyKos.

Wow, you must spend alot of time worring about me, how flattering!

I'll have you know that the only time I've ever visited those sites is when YOU or fossten or some other RWW here post links to them. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING THERE?? I'll also have you know that my voting ratio of republican to democrat is at least 5:1. However from your perspective out there in the far-right wing of neo-con whackoland, ANY BODY who disagrees with you on ANYTHING looks like a left-winger liberal.

"Poluted perception", seek some help.

 

[fossten]

Wow, you must spend alot of time worring about me, how flattering!

I'll have you know that the only time I've ever visited those sites is when YOU or fossten or some other RWW here post links to them. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING THERE?? I'll also have you know that my voting ratio of republican to democrat is at least 5:1. However from your perspective out there in the far-right wing of neo-con whackoland, ANY BODY who disagrees with you on ANYTHING looks like a left-winger liberal.

"Poluted perception", seek some help.

There you go again, stating falsehoods.

Show me ONE SINGLE LINK that I've posted to any of those sites. I've never done it unless the link was provided to me by someone else.

It's not that you disagree with conservatives on ANYTHING, it's that you disagree with conservatives on virtually EVERYTHING, no matter what the topic, and you do it angrily. Examples are the Mary Kay Latourneau scandal and the Joe Biden remarks, which are both indefensible positions to take, and yet you stood alone on the wrong side of the issue, trying in vain to make a cogent argument, wandering around in search of a thought.

You'd disagree with the assertion that the sky is blue if a conservative said it.

Purest hater I've ever seen on this site.

 

[TheDude]

Purest hater I've ever seen on this site.

My goal in life will now be to usurp Johnny from his "Purest Hater" throne. That just sounds cool, PUREST HATER; kind of just rolls off the tongue.

 

[Calabrio]

Wow, you must spend alot of time worring about me, how flattering!

If it makes you feel better about yourself, I won't bother to correct your assumption. But it's important to give examples that everyone knows.

I'll have you know that the only time I've ever visited those sites is when YOU or fossten or some other RWW here post links to them. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING THERE??

Because in order to debate an issue, you need to understand both arguments. In order to win a debate, you need to be able to anticipate the opponents argument. And, in some cases, the kooks on those sites are funny and the links get passed around like a chain letter.

I'll also have you know that my voting ratio of republican to democrat is at least 5:1. However from your perspective out there in the far-right wing of neo-con whackoland, ANY BODY who disagrees with you on ANYTHING looks like a left-winger liberal.

Let's just clarify this, you're saying for every five Repulicans you've voted for, you've only voted for one democrat. Does this mean that you've only voted six times, the commit a felony and can no longer vote?

Please, tell us, so what Republicans have you supported in the past. When was the last time you supported a Republican in the Presidential race. What elements of the Republican party platform do you support?

"Poluted perception", seek some help.

Then clear up the waters.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Let's just clarify this, you're saying for every five Repulicans you've voted for, you've only voted for one democrat. Does this mean that you've only voted six times, the commit a felony and can no longer vote?

Dang! How old do you think I am?

I was referring to presidential elections only, and now that I go back and recount my votes, its more like 3:2:1 for R/I/D:

'80 - Reagan
'84 - Reagan
'88 - Bush
'92 - Perot
'96 - Perot
'00 - DNV (didn't like either Gore or Bush, and sure as hell wasn't voting for Nader)
'04 - Kerry (primarly a vote against BuSh, had he not stepped foot in Iraq, I would've voted for BuSh and I'd be singing a different tune today)

So now that I've laid all my cards on the table, are you brave enough to share your voting record?

What elements of the Republican party platform do you support?

Today's GOP is not the same as Reagan's GOP, not by a long shot. I still believe the US must "talk softly, but carry a big stick". I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in environmental conciousness. I believe in truth. I believe in science over religion. I believe religion has no buisness in politics or in our laws. I believe in religious, racial, gender and sexual orientation equality and freedom. I believe in respecting my fellow man as long as they show me equal respect. I believe in "turning the other cheek", but GOD only gave me two cheeks. I believe in government transparency and a free press. I believe when one climbs the ladder of prosperity, they should give the guy below them a hand up so that all can prosper.

My personal "mantra" I use for moral guidance is very simple. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. But if you cross me, you better watch out.

 

[fossten]

Still waiting for you to show what links I've posted to your favorite sites.

 

[Calabrio]

So now that I've laid all my cards on the table, are you brave enough to share your voting record?

Clearly you're being sarcastic. Do you possibly have any doubt that I would be proud to announce my voting history?

I have never voted for a Democrat. Ever.

But, that's not a difficult task where I live. Fortunately, I moved from New York before I was of voting age. I'm fortunate to live in a fairly conservative area. Katherine Harris is my Congress woman. Jeb Bush is my governor.

Today's GOP is not the same as Reagan's GOP, not by a long shot.

This is not true. The core of the GOP is exactly the Reagan GOP. That's why he's such a powerful symbol.

I still believe the US must "talk softly, but carry a big stick". I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in environmental conciousness. I believe in truth.

I won't challenge you on any of this.[/QUOTE]

I believe in science over religion.

We're entering into a very challenging period in our history. We're at the point where we can do things, through the application of science, that is arguably morally wrong.

You can eliminate the religion from the debate, but there are somethings that we have to decide if it's "right" to do. For example, in England, they just passed a law saying it was illegal to screen unborn children by sex.
Choosing baby's sex to be outlawed

I believe religion has no buisness in politics or in our laws.

Let's first establish what religion is. It's a moral frame work, no more, no less. And the founding fathers and all important historians, like Tocqueville, recognize that will it's not important to establish a state religion, inorder for our society to work, it depends on moral people to participate in it.

Why shouldn't moral values and judgements be a part of political decisions?

And why shouldn't the institutions of free enterprise, another cornerstone of our nation, influence our judgement. "The business of America is business" so says one of greatest, yet underrated Presidents in history, Cal Coolidge.

I believe in religious, racial, gender and sexual orientation equality and freedom. I believe in respecting my fellow man as long as they show me equal respect. I believe in "turning the other cheek", but GOD only gave me two cheeks. I believe in government transparency and a free press.

o.k.
however, that turn the other cheek comment. Personally, I believe in blocking and drawing first blood. It's served me well as a principled man, and it's good for a country too.

I believe when one climbs the ladder of prosperity, they should give the guy below them a hand up so that all can prosper.

And how should they do that? I think the should create opportunity for those beneath them, through the creation of jobs, through the purchase of goods, and by saving their money, making money available for bank loans.

I do not believe it is the job of the federal government, to take the successful man's earnings, essentially at gun point, and give it to the unmotivated man.

My personal "mantra" I use for moral guidance is very simple. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. But if you cross me, you better watch out.

I think any moral guide should be a little deeper than that, but with that said, I don't think you're even applying that to the defense of our country. Unless you think cross words and nasty looks constitutes "you better watch out."

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Still waiting for you to show what links I've posted to your favorite sites.

You are correct, a search returns no postings of yours containing links to democratundergroud.com or DailyKos.com. I withdraw my comment. Now prove that those are my "favorite sites" or withdraw your comment.

 

[Calabrio]

You are correct, a search returns no postings of yours containing links to democratundergroud.com or DailyKos.com. I withdraw my comment. Now prove that those are my "favorite sites" or withdraw your comment.

Have you spent any time reading those sites? There is no way someone like yourself, with the reading that you do, would not be aware of those website and those communities.

Any opinions of DailyKos, MoveOn, or DU?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

We're entering into a very challenging period in our history. We're at the point where we can do things, through the application of science, that is arguably morally wrong.

You can eliminate the religion from the debate, but there are somethings that we have to decide if it's "right" to do. For example, in England, they just passed a law saying it was illegal to screen unborn children by sex.
Choosing baby's sex to be outlawed


Let's first establish what religion is. It's a moral frame work, no more, no less. And the founding fathers and all important historians, like Tocqueville, recognize that will it's not important to establish a state religion, inorder for our society to work, it depends on moral people to participate in it.

Why shouldn't moral values and judgements be a part of political decisions?

Allow me to clarify. I should have said that "I believe in the proof of physical science over the belief in a religion." And I didn't say that I believe there was NO place for "morals" within our laws. However, those moral-based laws should never restrict anyone's freedom to live within one's own religion of choice, or lack thereof. As long as your actions don't infringe on my personal freedoms, I shouldn't care what YOU do, nor should any law give me the power to stop you.

And how should they do that? I think the should create opportunity for those beneath them, through the creation of jobs, through the purchase of goods, and by saving their money, making money available for bank loans.

I do not believe it is the job of the federal government, to take the successful man's earnings, essentially at gun point, and give it to the unmotivated man.

I agree unmotivated people shouldn't get hand-outs. However I make a clear distinction between "unmotivated" and "unable". There are millions of disabled people and people with disabilities who do not diserve to be left on the streets to starve and die. They are in that state NOT for lack of motivation, but for things beyond their control. I see nothing wrong with providing them life support and paying for it with taxes. It is what any decent, caring society should do.

 

[Calabrio]

Allow me to clarify. I should have said that "I believe in the proof of physical science over the belief in a religion." And I didn't say that I believe there was NO place for "morals" within our laws. However, those moral-based laws should never restrict anyone's freedom to live within one's own religion of choice, or lack thereof. As long as your actions don't infringe on my personal freedoms, I shouldn't care what YOU do, nor should any law give me the power to stop you.

I'm fortunate. I've had ample opportunity and motivation to extensively read the documents are writings that are the basis of the political theory founding this country. From the federalist papers, to the anti-federalist writings, through Tocqueville.

This country can not, and will not, survive, if an ethical anarchy were to exist.

I agree unmotivated people shouldn't get hand-outs. However I make a clear distinction between "unmotivated" and "unable". There are millions of disabled people and people with disabilities who do not diserve to be left on the streets to starve and die.

And I ask you, where is this happening? Where are genuinely disabled people being left to starve to death? And, I too, would agree, it is the responsibility of society to deal with those who are unable to take care of themself.

But I'd also ask you this, who is better suited to deal with these charity, government (with it's rampant inefficiency) or local charity. And when I say local charity, that best falls into the realm of Church and other religious outreach.

They are in that state NOT for lack of motivation, but for things beyond their control. I see nothing wrong with providing them life support and paying for it with taxes. It is what any decent, caring society should do.

Are you taking about a blind guy with no legs? Then I might agree.
Are you talking about a 32 year old guy drunk who has a tought time getting up in the morning, but loves to knock women up at night? Then I'd disagree.

 

[fossten]

But I'd also ask you this, who is better suited to deal with these charity, government (with it's rampant inefficiency) or local charity. And when I say local charity, that best falls into the realm of Church and other religious outreach.

You need look no further than the disaster response and subsequent fraud, waste and abuse of government money during the Katrina aftermath to find your answer.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

To address you both, on a case-by-case basis, I believe local charities / churches can deal with the needs of individuals or small groups much more efficiently and effectively than the federal government, no doubt about that in my mind. However, in a widespread disaster scenario like Katrina, there is no friggin' way local charities & churches can handle that, the federal government MUST step in with assistance. It's a damn shame though, when buracracy within the fed govt. results in huge waste like what has happened. There's a fine-line to walk for a government agency to be large enough to cover the big disasters, but not so large and cumbersome to result in huge waste and little "real aid" to the people who need it. That's why I feel that FEMA was doing just fine and by the BuSh administration moving it into the DHS, it was set it up for the failure we've observed w/ Katrina.

 

[Calabrio]

That's why I feel that FEMA was doing just fine and by the BuSh administration moving it into the DHS, it was set it up for the failure we've observed w/ Katrina.

It's a myth that FEMA was "just fine" prior to it's move into DHS. It had never dealt with a situation the scope of Katrina before.

And second, the federal government really didn't do a bad job dealing with the aftermath of Katrina. Fault lies, in large part on the inept local and state government and, unpopular as it might be to say it, the people who were caught in the wake of the storm.

Everyone should read this article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html