genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-17-04 12:10 AM
Original message |
|
I have been looking at attack after attack on Democratic candidates here where the source was nothing more than rumor and wild speculation. Yet, if anyone dares to say anything against the Republicans, we need proof. If we dare repeat anything against the Republicans that is not backed up by a hundred depositions and photographs, then we are risking looking silly, dumb, rumor-mongering. If anyone makes any serious claims showing wrong-doing on the part of the Republican Party, they are unstable, mentally ill, psycho. People call Bush's accusers discredited even if they never have been discredited because we can't be the type of people who suspect wrongdoing on the part of Bush or the other Republicans.
We think we are going to have an election this year. Those questioning whether the election fix is already in are paranoid- right?
We especially should never believe any nonsense about Bush or Rove setting up 9-11.
Did anyone here notice that nice guys don't overthrow Democratically elected governments as happened in 2000? Did anyone here notice that honorable guys don't stop vote counters from counting votes? Did anyone notice that nice guys don't lie about WMD's so that, after killing a bunch of innocent people, they can steal oil from a foreign country?
I have some news that may shock some people: Bush is not a saint. If you have the courage to see how little of a saint he is, watch the collapse of the WTC on video. Take the preconceptions out of your mind and watch it objectively and see what happens as it falls. Ask an engineer whether there is anything unusual. Then look at the pictures of the Pentagon after the "plane crash" on 9-11. Where are the wings? Where is the debris? A good place to get links to this stuff is legitgov.org. Now after you review this stuff, ask yourself whether Bush will allow some Democrat to displace him on November 2, 2004. We have some work that goes far beyond getting votes for our candidates. We need to wake up the country to what is really going to take place in November and then we need to find a way to make sure the real winner takes office next January.
Personally, I think that we have to stop attacking Bush's attackers and to have the courage to look at the truth about this guy.
|
feistydem
(994 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-17-04 12:43 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Are we on the same site? |
|
It's true there has been some gossip mongering going on here without reliable sourcing, and I agree it is counterproductive -- but there is plenty of 'attitude' on DU over Bush/Cheney/Rove/Ashcroft and their collective pack of lies.
I don't think the truth about these maniacs in office has been lost on many people here --except maybe the trolls posing as devil's advocates and pushing these "drudged-up" stories.
I do agree with you that the authenticity of the 2004 election is at risk with a paperless ballot system. If it is close, Rove may steal freely, which is why it can't be close. There cannot be another recount to settle it --or we're doomed.
Forget about integrity. It doesn't exist in the Bush White House.
Do I need 'proof' to write that? Because I could fill the website with links, starting with Bush's refusal to testify before the 9/11 Commission.
|
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-17-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Here you might need that proof. A lot of people here seem to be on Bush's |
|
Edited on Tue Feb-17-04 03:44 PM by genius
side. I've posted articles attacking Bush and several people here have attacked the author over her age. While she had a great many supporters who came to her defense, the attacks were terrible and did not seem to be the type of thing Democrats would write.
Some people here also have attacked the stability of a woman who dared to accuse Bush of some crimes and the only basis for their doubts about her stability was her accusation. A great many law students and attorneys feel she was very intelligent and stable for a lay person but she was still heavily attacked here. Apparently Bush isn't that bad.
Yesterday Rick Perry was attacked on this forum and people who dared to attack him were told they were out of line by others in this forum.
So anyone who dares to attack Bush or the Republicans here, may find themselves under attack.
|
Egnever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-17-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I think you need a break from gd 2004 |
|
Plenty of bush bashing going on here this just isnt the forum you should be looking in for it.
There are other forums you know.
|
Albert Einstein
(241 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-17-04 08:47 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good job. |
|
It's nice to see a posting from someone with a brain. I was about to give up on this place.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |