Democratic Underground... That Was Fast!

[Kyle]

MG,

The point was "Demmies" constantly claim to be the party of "Diversity, Tolerance and Compassion"...

They seem pretty damn hateful to me when reading that. And I didn't see the "Compassion" crowd, if there is one, rushing to correct them!

Oh! And this line I genuinely loved!

Originally posted by MGKrebs
... When we meet a Euroweenie, we need to ask: Are you from the part of Europe whose ass we kicked or whose ass we saved?
...

 

[FredFlintstone]

Re: Re: Bruzilla

Originally posted by Bruzilla
McVeigh was a coward... I don't see that. I see him as misguided, stupid, even evil.

You don't see a man who loads up a Ryder truck with hundreds of pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel and parks it near a building and gets out and calmly walks away after he lights the fuse and murders 168 men, women and children (the children were in the building's day care center) as a coward?

McVeigh was stupid--he thought he'd get away with it like Osama bin Laden has gotten away with it.

Misguided? Yeah, so is OBL and Bush with his "war" on Iraq.

Evil? When Bush talks about "evil doers," he should remember his "good friends the Saudis" (his words 10 days ago), who are the most two-faced, stab us in the back sponsors of terrorism in the world. Illegal drugs don't support terrorism. Buying SUV's and huge pickup trucks (and thousands of gallons of fuel) supports terrorism because the Saudis use our money that we used to purchase crude to teach their children to hate us and they fund more terrorist organizations than any country in the world.

 

[FredFlintstone]

Kyle

Originally posted by Kyle
... When we meet a Euroweenie, we need to ask: Are you from the part of Europe whose ass we kicked or whose ass we saved?...

When did the United States kick Switzerland's ass or save it?

 

[Kyle]

Re: Kyle

Originally posted by FredFlintstone


When did the United States kick Switzerland's ass or save it?

Fortunately for them the war ended before Hitler decided to make a withdrawl!

Shhhhh. What's that?... I think I hear the DU calling you back.

 

[vraiblonde]

Flintstone, I have one question for you:

Did you stand around with a lit candle and a picket sign when McVeigh was executed? Just asking - that seems to be what liberals like to do when a convicted murderer gets put to death.

Illegal drugs don't support terrorism.

Sure they do. What do you think these governments DO with their drug money? Buy food for the orphans? Open a homeless shelter?

I do agree with you, however, that Bush is misguided in his "friendship" with the Saudis. I really really hope he has an ulterior motive and he's not REALLY friendly with these freaks.

 

[Bruzilla]

Sorry Frederick, but I don't think that loading up a truck with explosives and blowing up people (why do Libs always insist on coloring death counts with the words "woman and kids"?) a coward. I would simply refer to that action as being evil. I think that sums it up. When I speak to McVeigh not being cowardly I refer to his actions after the bombing.

The fact that you see no need to attack Iraq, or that the War on Terrorism is lost because no one has OBL's head on a spike, shows just how little you know about the world. We've toppled one regime that was a threat, and we're soon to topple another one. Your boy Billy, inbetween BJs, only managed to kill a couple of janitors. Talk about success.

Before you point fingers at the Saudis for supporting terrorists, you might want to look at the US. There are many Americans who support terrorists on a global scale. The Saudi's may prove the addage of "A friend in need is a friend indeed", but I wouldn't go so far as to label them an enemy.

 

[Bruzilla]

Ok Fred, I took you up on your challenge. I posted the thread about GWB missing his drills on Free Republic at 12:51 on 9/5/02. I wait to see if I get banned ala DU, but I doubt it.

 

[MGKrebs]

du vs. freep

Finman, It’s just from a quick search of the forums at Free Republic. Probably freerepublic.com.

Vrai, I am certain I could find what you want from the freepers. Maybe there’s just no dems in the process of dying today, so it’s not right on top.

Kyle, …and I guess those conservatives buy into the right wing package except for the "family values" part. There are many shades of liberal, just like conservatives. Y’all can generalize all you want, but it only serves to polarize. I haven’t tried to "correct" the DU’ers, just like I haven’t tried to correct the freepers. There’s no point. Those guys (on both sides) are activists. It’s like a pep rally. It’s similar to the idea that there are certain things that you would say to other adults, but not in front of kids. Or say things in your house that you wouldn’t say in public. But since this is an open forum, I feel like I can interject my side here.

 

[vraiblonde]

Maynard, that's why I like these forums' political discussions better than anyone else's. You get a variety of opinions instead of having to tow some party line. Granted, the majority of us agree with the conservative opinion but we're not all lockstep by any stretch.

It's astonishing to me that anyone would be interested in being part of the "parrot club". How are you ever supposed to grow and learn if you don't hear a different take on an issue?

I typically go with what makes sense to me - if someone could ever make a case for liberal causes, I'd agree with them. But no one has yet. That said, I AM all for gay marriages and other things that should be the right of every taxpayer. But I am firmly AGAINST anti-discrimination laws of any form.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm against gay marriages solely for the reason that I believe that the institution of marriage is a religious event not a government one. Government's role in marriage is nothing more than a unnecessary tax revenue scheme in the form of license fees. So until a recognized religion approves of homosexuality, I see no legal way for the government to force religions to recognize these unions.

The real issue is the rights, obligations, and entitlements of homosexual couples, and that I think the government can regulate. Just do away with the whole marriage license scheme and create a family unit or domestic union license that will show government certification of a bond between two people, and that will allow all of the legal benefits of a marriage. That way homosexuals will get what they want, and you won't have the religious folks screaming about marriages. The government can say there's a bond and the churches can bless that bond with a marriage ceremony if the bondees qualify.

 

[jimmy]

Wow, Bru, sounds like you are for a nice expanding of the seperation of Church and State...BRAVO!!

 

[Bruzilla]

I think there's a difference between a "seperation of church and state" and the Establishment clause. The later specifies that the government cannot create any religions, nor pass any laws prohibiting the free expression of religion by a citizen. It does not say that no law shall be passed that supports or benefits a religion. That's a big difference. I think that government should stay away from religious institutions like marriage, but I think people who think the Establishment clause bans prayer in school, "In God We Trust" on coins, nativity scenes, etc., are reading things into the law that aren't there.

 

[Bruzilla]

Ok Mr. Flintstone... I must officially declare you to be Full of Sh1t. I just checked back at freerepublic.com and not only found that I had not been banned for posting about GWB going AWOL, but had accumulated as of 15:16 on 5 Sep 02, 37 replies to my post. Most of them welcoming me to the forums, and many of them also asking questions about Bush missing drills and some very informative posts that answered my questions about the topic.

The common theme was that we may disagree, but we don't ban people for disagreeing. So.... it seems that like DU.COM, you are leaking manure out of your ears.

Do you have any other idiotic Liberal vs Conservative challenges you would like me to take?

 

[vraiblonde]

Bru, that was the experience I had with FreeRepublic, too. I posted that I had actually found them via the DU and they didn't seem to bat an eyelash about that. Didn't say anything mean about them, just welcomed me. I found them to be very civilized - unlike some other partisan websites I could name.

 

[Kyle]

Not surprised Bru. It seems to have become the tactic of choice lately on the news shows (CNN/FOX/MSNBC etc.) that when it comes time for the conservative voice, or even a dissenting liberal, to state their side of the argument, the liberal pundit is shouting over or interrupting the speaker to the point you can't hear what's being said.

So, I'm sure, deleting the post and banning the dissenter only seems natural to the DU.

 

[Bruzilla]

I guess it shows who's really open-minded and inclusive.

 

[MGKrebs]

I don't want to be in the position of defending DU, but...

Y'all are WAY off base on this. If you just want to bash DU for the hell of it, feel free and skip to the next post, but...

a true liberal would recognize the right of the freepers or the militia's or almost anybody else setting up a privately owned discussion group with pretty much any rules they choose. It's only when government funded organizations try to suppress some points of view and not others that there is a problem. The liberal indignation comes from conservatives, especially religious conservatives, trying to dictate a correct way of life that is supposed to apply to everybody. The ten commandments are undeniably a Christain icon. That doesn't mean they are bad or wrong, but the context is inappropriate for a public school.

 

[The Finman]

Check out this thread...

ROTFLMAO!...seems like even some of the natives are getting restless at some of David Allen's (A.K.A Skinner) bull$hit! :razz2:

Have you received messages from a banned person?

I mean why on God's green earth would someone want to be part of a web site that is run by the thought police?

I particulary like this exchange! :razz2:

Originally posted by Must_B_Free
Since you're oblieging us, and graciously, I might add, what about JAM557 or whatever his name was, (something like that). I was following the thread when he was banned, and it didn't even seem like he did anything wrong but to disagree with your judgement. Was he let back in?

Originally posted by Skinner (Admin)
There was a lot of ugliness that week, people at each other's throats, and even some cases of borderline and overt anti-semitism. Those are the shittiest times to be an admin. I'm afraid Jam754 picked the wrong week to be insensitive.

 

[pilot]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
So until a recognized religion approves of homosexuality, I see no legal way for the government to force religions to recognize these unions.

Judaism (Reform Denomination) recognizes gay unions.

 

[Bruzilla]

Shame on you MGK... I expected more from you! When confronted with a challenge to what your Democrat buddies are doing at DU, you immediately try to shift attention, and blame, over to the "Religious Right!" The religious right, conservatives, Republicans, Freepers, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the DU or it's policies. What the DU is doing is done at their own discretion, so please don't waste our time trying to do a slight of hand and distract attention away from DU by yelling about some other group.

Why are we bashing DU? Because folks at that site suggested that it would be fun to come over here and stir the pot. We welcomed all of you with open arms, and you can come over here and say anything you want. But, when we wish to go to DU and express our feelings, we get instantly banned. I'm not talking about people who just post to piss people off, I'm talking about people like myself who posted our honest points of view and since they didn't conform to accepted thought we were banned. So it's ok for DU people to enjoy the freedoms of this site, but not vice-versa. What's that say about DU? What's that say about guys like you who defend them?

I know a lot of DU guys probably have fits about country clubs, cigar-smoking Republican men's clubs, and religious organizations banning participation from people outside of their groups, but what is DU doing that's any different? Talk about "Do as I Say, Not as I Do."