Do the Democrats have ANY credibility at all?

[vraiblonde]

I'm surprised we're not talking about this more on here. The House vote to withdraw troops was profoundly revealing.

The Coulter column this week - http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=88 - includes this passage:

In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

What are we to make of the fact that — as we now know — the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

How do the Leftist screamers reconcile this? I've heard them tawktawk on TV, but their excuses are completely lame and unbelievable. WHY do they keep calling publically for a withdraw, but reverse themselves when push comes to shove?

A Vietnamese General came right out and said that "peace" protests encourage the enemy and he says this fromfirst-hand knowledge.

403 of our Representatives, who spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing Bush and demanding that our troops be brought home, voted to stay the course.

What are we to make of this?

 

[Larry Gude]

Pink Floyd...

du du da dan du du...

MONEY

During off season, when no elections are pressing, normal, sane people do not donate much money. The hardcore wings of both parties, especially the leftists of the Democratic party will give but only if they are getting what they want; hostility. The DNC has bills to pay in season or no and candidates always seek some kibble.

You can call Bush a liar and a failure and demand withdrawal and what not now in order to get the DU'ers to open their...well...whatever it is they keep their cash.

You can't, however, go to far, like a vote you cannot deny or spin later on.

Notice Scream Dean built his lead in the last race with the Screamers right behind him BEFORE anything counted and the DU'ers were all about Kuccinich and Wes Clark.

Come 'pay attention' time and...viola! The relatively sane said 'Are you crazy?'
and the Howie and Dennis show was OVER.

The GOP, in one of the slickest moves anyone has pulled in some time, turned the light on the Dems...and they got their faith back, real quick.

Yeah or nay?

 

[willie]

It is more apparent each day that the Dems hatred towards Bush blind them to what fools they make of themselves. Some dingbat on Hannity & Colmes last night said that Murtha should be credited for the Pentagon's decision to cut troops to Iraq.

 

[snuzzy]

It's getting to where I can't watch Fox anymore, "Fair and Balanced" is simply giving some people a platform...that they wouldn't otherwise have! I try to be open minded and hear both sides of any issue,( but then there's my husband, sitting next to me, yelling, "Libiralism is a mental desease!" ) I think it is important to hear the "other side" so that I can debate intelligently, but when there is so much hypocrisy/inconsistencies in what the democrats say, it's hard to debate on an intellectual level! I like Anne Coulter because she does a much better job of taking on the issues "line by line" than I could!

 

[vraiblonde]

I think it is important to hear the "other side" so that I can debate intelligently, but when there is so much hypocrisy/inconsistencies in what the democrats say, it's hard to debate on an intellectual level!

I completely and totally agree with that. The Democrats used to have a place at the table, with completely healthy differences and opinions that balanced the conservative viewpoint. Now they've let the Leftists take over the party and it's a damn shame.

 

[snuzzy]

I completely and totally agree with that. The Democrats used to have a place at the table, with completely healthy differences and opinions that balanced the conservative viewpoint. Now they've let the Leftists take over the party and it's a damn shame.

Exactly! This country was founded on debate, and it makes life interesting , but when you get people with agendas that do not support honest debate, it deteriorates the premise that intelligent people can compromise and come to a resolve that may not please everyone, but that is fair and honest. Why then, do they "go there"? It has to be hatred or a "win at all cost" philosophy. When we are at such odds in the world, it really scares me that we have to be so at odds with each other. I think that what is happening in France is a good (really bad!) example of what will happen if the "liberal agenda" wins. We can not , and should not "please all the people, all the time" it is a slippery slope that I feel our country is going down. As a teacher, I see it all the time, and in the universities...well that's just scary.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why then, do they "go there"?

Their money-man is George Soros and his fundraising arm is the MoveOn.org brigade. Soros is a Hungarian Leftist and the Democrats pretty much do what he says to keep the dough rolling in.

Read more about Soros here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15736

Basically, the Democrats sold their souls for the almighty dollar.

 

[snuzzy]

Follow the dollar...

 

[dems4me]

I completely and totally agree with that. The Democrats used to have a place at the table, with completely healthy differences and opinions that balanced the conservative viewpoint. Now they've let the Leftists take over the party and it's a damn shame.

I agree. Maybe you should take up the platform!! I'd vote for you.

 

[Larry Gude]

snuzzy...

it is a slippery slope that I feel our country is going down

"Gorilla"
"Ape"
"Nothing more than a slick backwoods lawyer"
"Tyrant"
"Despot"
"Dictator"
"He will, given time, destroy all of our sacred rights for all time to satisfy his thirst for absolute power"

Sound familiar? This and much, much more and worse was said of an American President long ago; Abraham Lincoln. By major, respected newspapers, leading statesmen and public figures both North AND South.

We live in an unusually but not unprecedented time of divisiveness. The issue of how to best protect the nation from terrorists is as emotionally charged and challenging subject.

When the stakes are so high people get out on a limb and it becomes an all or nothing proposition.

Leftists today have no more business defending, as they are in fact doing, global terror than the fire eaters and Southern gentlemen of 1860 did in defening their 'way of life' which meant one and only one thing; defending slavery.

They could not get what they wanted at the ballot box so they tried other ways. Sound familiar?

Yes, we live in rancrous times but that does not mean there is no right or wrong. On the contrary, there is now as then a wrong and right side and the heat is simply a symptom.

Since 1865 those who favored the South have presented the argument in terms of states rights or economics or whatever; anything but slavery because that is where their position was indefensible.

Now, as then, the wrong side, the leftists, presents their argument in terms of data, dates and decisions that could have been better or different; anything but the simple matter of good and evil where their position is indefensible.

So, fear not. The real battle is not between Americans divided on an issue; the real battle is within ourselves as to whether or not we have the stomach to see it through.

The South bet on that, resolve, 144 years ago and lost, nevermind the name calling and the invective.

Leftists and terrorists are betting on it today.

 

[2ndAmendment]

"Gorilla"
"Ape"
"Nothing more than a slick backwoods lawyer"
"Tyrant"
"Despot"
"Dictator"
"He will, given time, destroy all of our sacred rights for all time to satisfy his thirst for absolute power"

Sound familiar? This and much, much more and worse was said of an American President long ago; Abraham Lincoln. By major, respected newspapers, leading statesmen and public figures both North AND South.

We live in an unusually but not unprecedented time of divisiveness. The issue of how to best protect the nation from terrorists is as emotionally charged and challenging subject.

When the stakes are so high people get out on a limb and it becomes an all or nothing proposition.

Leftists today have no more business defending, as they are in fact doing, global terror than the fire eaters and Southern gentlemen of 1860 did in defening their 'way of life' which meant one and only one thing; defending slavery.

They could not get what they wanted at the ballot box so they tried other ways. Sound familiar?

Yes, we live in rancrous times but that does not mean there is no right or wrong. On the contrary, there is now as then a wrong and right side and the heat is simply a symptom.

Since 1865 those who favored the South have presented the argument in terms of states rights or economics or whatever; anything but slavery because that is where their position was indefensible.

Now, as then, the wrong side, the leftists, presents their argument in terms of data, dates and decisions that could have been better or different; anything but the simple matter of good and evil where their position is indefensible.

So, fear not. The real battle is not between Americans divided on an issue; the real battle is within ourselves as to whether or not we have the stomach to see it through.

The South bet on that, resolve, 144 years ago and lost, nevermind the name calling and the invective.

Leftists and terrorists are betting on it today.

When it comes to states rights, Lincoln was one of if not the worst President. If a state had or has the right to accede to the Union then they had or have the right to secede from the Union.

Do I think slavery is right? No. Do I think Lincoln and the federal government exceeded their powers? Yes.

One other often missed point is that Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.

Abraham Lincoln, the American president who was eventually to issue the proclamation which formally abolished slavery throughout the United States in 1863 - and who is subsequently known as the "Great Emancipator" for this - was another who never believed in racial equality, again despite much propaganda to the contrary. Lincoln was, like Jefferson before him, firmly committed to racial separation, and came out in public support of a law in the state of Illinois which made marriage between Blacks and Whites a crime (Lincoln and the Negro, Benjamin Quarles, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, pages 36-37).

"You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

"Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on equality with the White race. On this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I cannot alter it if I would.

"I need not recount to you the effects upon White men, growing out of the institution of slavery. See our present condition - the country engaged in war! - our White men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Baler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, Vol. V, pages 371-375.)


As if this was not enough, when Lincoln finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he again called for the Black "colonization" (the creation of separate Black states) during his speech after the signing ceremony:

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, and shall continue. My emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

"I can conceive of no greater calamity that the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." (Ibid.)

So much for the image of the "Great Emancipator" then. The major difference between Lincoln and the Southerners then was that Lincoln wanted the slaves to be freed and sent away; the Southerners wanted the Black enslavement to continue and for the Blacks' continued presence in America.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr52.htm

 

[camily]

When it comes to states rights, Lincoln was one of if not the worst President. If a state had or has the right to accede to the Union then they had or have the right to secede from the Union.

Do I think slavery is right? No. Do I think Lincoln and the federal government exceeded their powers? Yes.

One other often missed point is that Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.

Sit down 2nd, I agree with you!!! lol Good points.

 

[Ken King]

If a state had or has the right to accede to the Union then they had or have the right to secede from the Union.

But the states never had a right to accede to the Union, it has always been a function of the Congress to allow or deny that entry (Article IV, Section 3).

 

[2ndAmendment]

But the states never had a right to accede to the Union, it has always been a function of the Congress to allow or deny that entry (Article IV, Section 3).

Not true for the first 13.

 

[Ken King]

Not true for the first 13.

The first 13 created the Union and the Constitution that they would operate under. Show me where the Constitution states that they are allowed to bow out?

 

[snuzzy]

I got bad karma because I'm a teacher and I like Ann Coulter! It just shows how narrow minded liberals can be. Just because I am in a "typically" liberal career, apparently, I can't think for myself and have my own opinions.

I agee with you, Ken King, I study, as well as teach the Constitution, and I don't see where states had/have a right to secede the Union. 2ndAmendment "Not true for the first 13"... there were 35 states during the Civil War.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The first 13 created the Union and the Constitution that they would operate under. Show me where the Constitution states that they are allowed to bow out?

Agreed that there is no place that Constitution allows for withdrawal. Why would there be? It also does not allow for approval of the original thirteen. It does state that it must be adopted by at least nine states. All the states acceded to the United States. Only the original 13 did not have to be approved by Congress since they were the parties forming the government. The intent of the founders was expressed by Madison.

"It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39

"...[T]he States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty..." --James Madison, The Federalist No. 45

The intent is clear that the states were to remain sovereign with the exception of those powers specifically yielded to the federal government under the terms of the Constitution. The joining of the United States by accession of a sovereign state is no different than the joining of NATO by the United States. The United States can certainly withdraw (secede) from NATO without the approval of NATO. If a state is sovereign, then it has the right to act to withdraw from the compact made with the United States to become a state. Why would there be an approval process for withdrawal of a sovereign body? I think the founders recognized that there could be no approval process. I call your attention to the Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If a party has the power to join an organization then they have the power to leave that organization. While the organization has the power to accept or reject the request to join, the organization has no legitimate power to prevent the resignation from the organization. If you request to join the Kiwanis or Optimists, the Kiwanis or Optimists have the right to accept or reject your application for membership. If you decide to withdraw from the Kiwanis or Optimists, do they have the right to say no? Can they impose that once you are approved for membership, you are always a member and must pay dues and abide by the rules of the organization? I don't think so. Regarding the founders, they were so independent minded that most would have preferred no government. They saw government as a necessary evil. In my opinion, they would have respected the right of a state to withdraw. It took greed, avarice, and power mongering to come to the point where the sovereignty of the states was not respected.

If the sovereignty of the states was not respected in Lincoln's time, it is certainly not respected now. The rights of the individual certainly are not. The Constitution is regarded a quaint, obsolete document instead of the absolute foundation of all federal law in the United States and the guarantor of the rights of the people and the states.

 

[2ndAmendment]

... I study, as well as teach the Constitution, and I don't see where states had/have a right to secede the Union. 2ndAmendment "Not true for the first 13"... there were 35 states during the Civil War.

You need to study far more than just the Constitution. You must also study the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and other writings from the founders to find their intent. It did not take long for the evilness of people to pervert what they tried to form.

As to the original 13, Ken said there was an approval process in Article IV, Section 3. That approval process did not apply to the original 13 since it was not in force until the Constitution was ratified. You should know that if you study the Constitution. That is what I stated, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Ken King]

2A,

It seems to me that you are arguing that the Constitution is merely a treaty among the many states. I believe it is more rightly the founding document of a singular country, a compact of the "people" cited in its opening clause. With the adoption of the 14th Amendment where national citizenry is defined/declared it, in my mind, implies that the states hold no right to leave the nation they now belong to as this is a nation of the people and not of the states.

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A,

It seems to me that you are arguing that the Constitution is merely a treaty among the many states. I believe it is more rightly the founding document of a singular country, a compact of the "people" cited in its opening clause. With the adoption of the 14th Amendment where national citizenry is defined/declared it, in my mind, implies that the states hold no right to leave the nation they now belong to as this is a nation of the people and not of the states.

You miss, as do most, that they were founding a federal organization and not a national organization. See my quote from Madison from the Federalist #39. The intent was to form a very limited central government that would regulate trade between the states and deal with foreign entities and provide for the common defense, nothing more. By the time the 14th Amendment was passed, the Constitution had been long perverted from its original intent.