Beneath any standard of the Democratic Party I have known...

[FromTexas]

Joseph R. Cerrell, a leading California Democrat and prominent Italian American, has called on Chairman Howard Dean to apologize to Federal Appellate Judge Samuel Alito for Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffers saying the Supreme Court nominee was weak in prosecuting the Mafia. Dean has not replied to Cerrell's Nov. 2 letter.

A DNC press release blasted Alito's record as a federal prosecutor in losing "a key conviction" that resulted in members of the Lucchese crime family being freed. "The staffers and the DNC must apologize to Judge Alito and to all Italian Americans" for "scurrilous tactics," Cerrell's letter said. He contended "this kind of behavior is beneath any standard of the Democratic Party that I have known."

Cerrell, a Los Angeles-based political consultant, is vice chairman of the National Italian American Foundation.

Right there. Black and white. That is it in a nutshell.

Does Bush have low ratings? Of course he does. No Democrat understands why. They just think it means they are getting ahead. That isn't it at all. We have two issues...

Democrats who hate Bush - ABB everywhere with a good number as moderates. Bush isn't running again. There is a chance to steal some of those Dems who are recognizing the key quote above (especially moderates).. that their party is sinking fast.

Republicans who are upset with Bush -- There are many of us. Almost every Republican on this board is one. We are tired of him trying to please everyone and instead alienating those of us who put him in office. We think he is getting away from the true conservative values we admire (i.e. fiscal, government size, regulatory, and social). However, does the Democrat party have a chance to really steal any of those? No. Bush isn't running again. Almost any Republican candidate we put up will be a stronger conservative candidate than Bush (excepting McCain who shouldn't be running anyway because he is a deadbeat).

So, we have a large number of Republians who are upset with Bush. Hence, the poll numbers show big gains in thinking the President is taking the country in the wrong direction. This is a win for us in the next election because right now the Dems think what they are doing is working for them... but its alienating people instead of helping. However, a good chunk of the people thinking that won't ever flip to the other side because the think they don't like about Bush is exactly what they would end up voting to have (i.e. someone running too liberal).

 

[soul4sale]

This is a win for us in the next election because right now the Dems think what they are doing is working for them... but its alienating people instead of helping.

Are you repeating this spin from, say, Rush? Or are you making it up as you go along?

 

[vraiblonde]

Are you repeating this spin from, say, Rush? Or are you making it up as you go along?

You just don't get it, do you? Well, I mean OBVIOUSLY you don't get it. Duh to me.

You think Bush's low numbers are a good sign for Democrats. Boy, are you in for a surprise come election day.

 

[Ken King]

Republicans who are upset with Bush -- There are many of us. Almost every Republican on this board is one. We are tired of him trying to please everyone and instead alienating those of us who put him in office. We think he is getting away from the true conservative values we admire (i.e. fiscal, government size, regulatory, and social).

How can you say he is alienating anyone? We got what we got when he was elected/re-elected and I still feel he is a heck of a lot better then either a Gore or a Kerry presidency would be.

Bush is a self-professed compassionate conservative. It’s what he campaigned on and if you’ve been observing him it is exactly how he acts. He thinks he has a better means of fixing social problems. His priorities have never been contained by the fiscal restraint Republicans are known for. The compassionate conservative philosophy is one that works for the restigmatizing of illegitimacy to encourage two-parent families; welfare reform including workfare; active policing; standards-based schools, and helping poor countries around the world. It seeks to help those in need and expects accountability along with positive results. It’s something many are not familiar with and as such it is easy to see why those expecting the status quo of the Republican Party are so frustrated.

 

[vraiblonde]

It seeks to help those in need and expects accountability along with positive results.

I disagree. Bush may be "compassionate" but I missed where the accountability comes in. AIDS billions to Africa - what's the point of that? Dropping food packs in Afghanistan so the black marketers could sell them to the locals - not a very well thought out plan.

he is a heck of a lot better then either a Gore or a Kerry presidency would be.

Key phrase and I think a lot of people felt this way. I, personally, was a one-issue voter - the War on Terror - and I voted accordingly. If I had felt that John Kerry would prosecute terrorism better than Bush, I'd have sucked it up and voted for him. And the guy who came on and said he'd blow those places up, screw collateral damage, let's get this over with, kill them and everyone who expresses support for them - I'd have voted for that guy regardless of any other issue stands.

 

[Ken King]

I disagree. Bush may be "compassionate" but I missed where the accountability comes in. AIDS billions to Africa - what's the point of that? Dropping food packs in Afghanistan so the black marketers could sell them to the locals - not a very well thought out plan.

It's not my style, just stating the concept as I understand it, but as to "Aid to Africa" it is a means of trying to help, beats the hell out of doing nothing but sitting back and watching them die. The food packs (MREs) was well intended but it was totally alien to anything those people knew, what should have been done, just go in and kill them all?

Key phrase and I think a lot of people felt this way. I, personally, was a one-issue voter - the War on Terror - and I voted accordingly. If I had felt that John Kerry would prosecute terrorism better than Bush, I'd have sucked it up and voted for him. And the guy who came on and said he'd blow those places up, screw collateral damage, let's get this over with, kill them and everyone who expresses support for them - I'd have voted for that guy regardless of any other issue stands.

Our safety was of great regard to me also and I see Bush as still being concerned and engaged on that front. Maybe it isn't to the level of destruction that you prefer but it is being presecuted and I see no halt to that. Now imagine a Gore or Kerry presidency and the way I believe that they would be handling it is that we would still be havnig debates on who actually was the culprit behind the bombings and Hussein would have a nuke or two by now as he would have spiked zero interest in their minds. Unless there was an abundance of polling data favoring an all out war we would still be sitting on our collective asses doing nothing.

 

[vraiblonde]

"this kind of behavior is beneath any standard of the Democratic Party that I have known."

Obviously Cerrell hasn't been paying attention. The Democrats jumped the shark a long time ago.

 

[vraiblonde]

but as to "Aid to Africa" it is a means of trying to help, beats the hell out of doing nothing but sitting back and watching them die.

Not really. Now we send them billions of dollars, which they will not use for its intended purpose, THEN we can watch them die. What's the point, besides wasted money? It's like gay men who refuse to protect themselves against AIDS - what can you do about those people? There are enough stupid people in the world - let the ones who want to kill themselves do so.

The food packs (MREs) was well intended but it was totally alien to anything those people knew, what should have been done, just go in and kill them all?

Dur. They could have actually overseen the food distribution. Maybe done a little more research so they could anticipate this problem and avoid it. The plan as implemented was a huge blunder on the part of Bush.

Maybe it isn't to the level of destruction that you prefer

Quit saying dumb things or I'm going to have Bush drop a food packet on your head.

At some point Bush has to make the public (and you, apparently) understand that this is war. "Changing hearts and minds" is sweet, it really is, but it's unrealistic. At some point you have to quit trying to change their minds and just kill them off. The rest will get the message fairly quickly. If Bush or whoever's in charge of this stuff would just give the greenlight to really open up a can on these guys, you'd start to see terrorism decrease because it wouldn't be worth it anymore - the consequences would be so extreme it would make them think twice. AND those true believers that didn't straighten up and fly right would be dead, so no problem there, either.

I equate this stuff with my own household. The older kid gets his butt in a sling for some behavior, the younger kids take note and avoid that behavior. Granted, they don't blow things up and kill people, but the concept is the same.

 

[Ken King]

Not really. Now we send them billions of dollars, which they will not use for its intended purpose, THEN we can watch them die. What's the point, besides wasted money? It's like gay men who refuse to protect themselves against AIDS - what can you do about those people? There are enough stupid people in the world - let the ones who want to kill themselves do so.

So, you know where every dollar of aid goes and what it is used for? You have missed your calling the GAO needs someone just like you. Singling out the gays, guess what IADS doesn’t care what your sexual preference is, many don’t protect themselves from the disease and they are of all orientations.

Dur. They could have actually overseen the food distribution. Maybe done a little more research so they could anticipate this problem and avoid it. The plan as implemented was a huge blunder on the part of Bush.

And how many thousands of soldiers would we have needed to do this instead of hunting down those we were after? Placing more troops in a dangerous environment then what you need is a blunder that wasn’t made, but I’ll let you dally in your military knowledgeable mind of being all knowing.

Quit saying dumb things or I'm going to have Bush drop a food packet on your head.

Hey Sweetie, it’s been you not me saying kill them all, let them all die. I think we should only target those that act against us and not those that just happen to live in the same part of the world or look like those that have done us harm.

At some point Bush has to make the public (and you, apparently) understand that this is war. "Changing hearts and minds" is sweet, it really is, but it's unrealistic. At some point you have to quit trying to change their minds and just kill them off. The rest will get the message fairly quickly. If Bush or whoever's in charge of this stuff would just give the greenlight to really open up a can on these guys, you'd start to see terrorism decrease because it wouldn't be worth it anymore - the consequences would be so extreme it would make them think twice. AND those true believers that didn't straighten up and fly right would be dead, so no problem there, either.

I think I understand war fairly well, it is you that have little clue. What you want isn’t war but a war crime; unbridled mayhem, genocide and mass destruction. You don’t have a clue what our troops and the President are up against. We aren’t battling against soldiers or those that can be identified as the enemy; we are fighting thugs and deviants willing to blow themselves up for a variety of reasons to achieve their goal. Even the great Israel can’t stop those bent on dying to kill others and they have been dealing with this type of war for years. What makes you think we can do any better then those that aren’t controlled by our rules of law and warfare?

I equate this stuff with my own household. The older kid gets his butt in a sling for some behavior, the younger kids take note and avoid that behavior. Granted, they don't blow things up and kill people, but the concept is the same.

No, it is not the same as your children aren’t willing to die in the process, nor can they hit you and then blend in with the surroundings remaining unknown to you. Trust me, it’s a lot more complicated then problems of being a parent.

 

[vraiblonde]

Singling out the gays, guess what IADS doesn’t care what your sexual preference is, many don’t protect themselves from the disease and they are of all orientations.

I was drawing an analogy. "Analogy" - look it up in the dictionary.

PS, AIDS in Africa isn't our problem anyway. Bush just did that to suck up to the black vote. Fat lot of good THAT did him, huh?

Placing more troops in a dangerous environment then what you need is a blunder that wasn’t made

Because, in your mind, it's so much better to knee-jerk react and slap a Band-Aid on the problem - and not just any old Band-Aid but one that doesn't fit and doesn't adhere. But hey, at least you can say you "did" something, right? Better to do nothing than do something stupid.

Hey Sweetie, it’s been you not me saying kill them all, let them all die.

Where did I say that? Or are you just having a "Sparx" moment and getting back to your Democrat roots?

unbridled mayhem, genocide and mass destruction.

Show me where I said that. I realize that reading isn't your strong suit but you could at least make an attempt.

we are fighting thugs and deviants willing to blow themselves up for a variety of reasons to achieve their goal.

No ####??? WOW! You are so brilliant and I am just grateful to be able to sit at your feet so you can school me. I'd have never gotten that from just, say, watching the news.



So, Mr. King, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't kill terrorists and terrorist supporters. We should...what? Negotiate with them? Try to reason with them? Make them "see the light"? Maybe bake them a cake or something? Because they're suddenly going to "get it" after thousands of years of "not getting it"?

You're so optimistic! And I think that's just cute as can be. inchescheek:

 

[Ken King]

I was drawing an analogy. "Analogy" - look it up in the dictionary.

PS, AIDS in Africa isn't our problem anyway. Bush just did that to suck up to the black vote. Fat lot of good THAT did him, huh?

Your analogy sucks, which is what I was pointing out. AIDS is a world wide problem or is it that you think diseases like this stop at the boundaries of other nations? I think Bush actually cares about the less fortunate and offered up as much aide as he could for those that asked for it.

Because, in your mind, it's so much better to knee-jerk react and slap a Band-Aid on the problem - and not just any old Band-Aid but one that doesn't fit and doesn't adhere. But hey, at least you can say you "did" something, right? Better to do nothing than do something stupid.

Knee-jerk, no in many people’s minds providing these meals was a damn good idea. Maybe a little more planning could have been done but what were we facing at the time and what was asked for us to do, get them food quick and that is what was done.

Where did I say that? Or are you just having a "Sparx" moment and getting back to your Democrat roots?

Name calling already, such a typical reaction from you; are you having a Midol moment? Besides anyone that has been around the boards for anytime at all knows that is exactly what you mean and what you have said for a long, long time. I care not to spend many hours searching down every reference that you have made to what you would like to see done in that region.

Show me where I said that. I realize that reading isn't your strong suit but you could at least make an attempt.

Maybe you should read your posts, you did write them, didn’t you? It’s there, everywhere, and consistent. It has been for years and you have said it even if it isn’t fresh in your memory.

No ####??? WOW! You are so brilliant and I am just grateful to be able to sit at your feet so you can school me. I'd have never gotten that from just, say, watching the news.

It’s useless to school those that you buy books for, teach to read, and all they want to do is eat their lunch (bet you though I was going to say teacher, huh). Do you see every Arab as a terrorist, do you know which one to kill and which one is of no harm?

So, Mr. King, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't kill terrorists and terrorist supporters. We should...what? Negotiate with them? Try to reason with them? Make them "see the light"? Maybe bake them a cake or something? Because they're suddenly going to "get it" after thousands of years of "not getting it"?

You're so optimistic! And I think that's just cute as can be. inchescheek:

No unwise one, I am not saying anything like that and you know that, what I am saying is that the prosecution of this military action will become even more slow and painful, that we will lose a lot more lives before we can even think of getting out. I am saying that because of our laws and those of the international community that we have chosen to conduct ourselves under we cannot go in and just wipe the slate clean. We are not in a full scale combat scenario and are more closely functioning in a police action which strips any advantage away from our troops that we held by our war making capability. And again we had been told this by the President before we went in and now people are pissing and moaning like this is all new to them. All I see are a bunch of fair-weather soldiers that have jumped ship once the going got tough and many of these are so-called conservatives willing to denounce a man that I think is still the best of what was offered to take on this task.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think Bush actually cares about the less fortunate and offered up as much aide as he could for those that asked for it.

I'm sure that's exactly what it is.

is it that you think diseases like this stop at the boundaries of other nations?

No, it's that I think (know, actually) that the vast majority of AIDS cases are preventable. And if people don't care to take precautions against a deadly disease, that would be their problem and not mine.

what was asked for us to do, get them food quick and that is what was done.

No thought, no planning - just toss down some food. You're trying to tell me that, with all the minds in Bush's cabinet, it didn't occur to ANYONE that throwing down food packets willy-nilly wasn't such a hot idea.

I don't buy it.

Name calling already, such a typical reaction from you

Yeah, because I am the name-caller around here!!! I am the one that calls people names!! Not you, of course - you are the calm, rational voice of reason.

It’s there, everywhere, and consistent.

Then you should have no problem finding an example, right?

Do you see every Arab as a terrorist, do you know which one to kill and which one is of no harm?

I give our intel a bit more credit than you do.

I am saying that because of our laws and those of the international community that we have chosen to conduct ourselves under we cannot go in and just wipe the slate clean.

I think it's cute that you think our laws and those of the internation community mean jack squat to a terrorist.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go apply my highlights - blonder, so I can bring myself down to your level of intelligence.

 

[FromTexas]

How can you say he is alienating anyone? We got what we got when he was elected/re-elected and I still feel he is a heck of a lot better then either a Gore or a Kerry presidency would be.

I never said it wasn't better than Gore or Kerry. In essence, that is my point; no matter how alienated any Republican voter feels from George Bush, they aren't going to flip to the other side of the fence because their needs won't be met there. The reason they are perturbed with Bush is he is not being conservative enough (i.e. spending, trying to meet people halfway who could care less like the democrats, etc...). He isn't showing any real backbone and he isn't controlling spending. So, when asked if I feel Bush is taking the country in the right direction in a yes/no opinion poll, my answer would be no. Does it mean I don't like the guy? No. Does it mean I think he should be doing a lot better? Yes. Does it mean I would vote any of the Democratic lead candidates into office for it? Never.

 

[Ken King]

I'm sure that's exactly what it is.

Well that is what a “compassionate conservative” would do right?

No, it's that I think (know, actually) that the vast majority of AIDS cases are preventable. And if people don't care to take precautions against a deadly disease, that would be their problem and not mine.

So no help at all, right? I guess that is a big difference between you and those that lead our nation that thought it might help and funded it.

No thought, no planning - just toss down some food. You're trying to tell me that, with all the minds in Bush's cabinet, it didn't occur to ANYONE that throwing down food packets willy-nilly wasn't such a hot idea.

I don't buy it.

What would you have done to get food to these people? Let the UN do it?

Yeah, because I am the name-caller around here!!! I am the one that calls people names!! Not you, of course - you are the calm, rational voice of reason.

You don’t shy from it, that’s for sure.

Then you should have no problem finding an example, right?

Okay, how about these?

“At some point you have to quit trying to change their minds and just kill them off.”
“And the guy who came on and said he'd blow those places up, screw collateral damage, let's get this over with, kill them…”

I give our intel a bit more credit than you do.

What intel do you have access to that shows which are the bad and which are the good?

I think it's cute that you think our laws and those of the internation community mean jack squat to a terrorist.

Never said that, what I said is it means more then jack to us so we follow them. I guess it would be easier to “drop to the level” of the heathen, but would it be right and would it save any lives?

 

[Ken King]

I never said it wasn't better than Gore or Kerry. In essence, that is my point; no matter how alienated any Republican voter feels from George Bush, they aren't going to flip to the other side of the fence because their needs won't be met there. The reason they are perturbed with Bush is he is not being conservative enough (i.e. spending, trying to meet people halfway who could care less like the democrats, etc...). He isn't showing any real backbone and he isn't controlling spending. So, when asked if I feel Bush is taking the country in the right direction in a yes/no opinion poll, my answer would be no. Does it mean I don't like the guy? No. Does it mean I think he should be doing a lot better? Yes. Does it mean I would vote any of the Democratic lead candidates into office for it? Never.

I never said that you said it either; it is just something that I said. Another thing I said, and what I think is being missed, is that Bush told everyone right from the beginning that he was a compassionate conservative, he was upfront with that and when he does these things, in a manner that his philosophy suggests, people feel alienated by it. It shouldn’t surprise anyone though as he isn’t the old-school conservative of small government and less spending.

 

[rraley]

I am not sure where the anger over "Scalito" comes from. It has been a nickname used by friend and foe alike....just seems normal. Plus, is racism against ethnic groups like Italians, Irish, etc. really so prevalent today that someone would want to consciously benefit from it?

 

[vraiblonde]

So no help at all, right? I guess that is a big difference between you and those that lead our nation that thought it might help and funded it.

And the end result will be the same - nothing will change and Africans will still have an AIDS epidemic. Except I didn't spend $32 billion or whatever it was.

What would you have done to get food to these people? Let the UN do it?

Acutally, yeah, I would have. It's their job, not ours And when it gets screwed up, it's on their head and not ours.

“At some point you have to quit trying to change their minds and just kill them off.”
“And the guy who came on and said he'd blow those places up, screw collateral damage, let's get this over with, kill them…”

And I was speaking specifically about terrorists. You either misunderstood or you don't think terrorists should be killed. And considering your Palestine stance, well....

What intel do you have access to that shows which are the bad and which are the good?

I have no intel - I assume our military does, though, and knows who's been naughty or nice.

Never said that, what I said is it means more then jack to us so we follow them.

Fab! Now George Bush needs to decide which means more to him - following our laws and the Geneva Convention or winning this war.

I guess it would be easier to “drop to the level” of the heathen, but would it be right and would it save any lives?

If he wasn't dead, you could ask Harry Truman what he thinks.

 

[SmallTown]

oh sheesh. Read the first couple of posts and saw it was a Vrai-KK tussle. So I won't have to read all of the posts, can someone just tell me who has the bigger penis, Vrai or KK? TIA.

 

[FromTexas]

oh sheesh. Read the first couple of posts and saw it was a Vrai-KK tussle. So I won't have to read all of the posts, can someone just tell me who has the bigger penis, Vrai or KK? TIA.

It isn't you, and that is all you need to worry about.

 

[vraiblonde]

can someone just tell me who has the bigger penis, Vrai or KK? TIA.

Ken - he's the biggest penis I know.