A Laundry List of the Latest Democratic Party Screwups
 

Why I never vote for Democrats.

The more they change, the more they remain the same. Take particular note of Hillary acting like the Southern Democrats of five and ten and fifteen decades ago: pandering for votes by stirring up racial tension, not to say hatred.

Contribute money to Hillary's opponents -- all of them -- and vote for them too. This unspeakable creature must be driven from public life before she really gets a chance to screw things up.

Hillary certainly shouldn't have used Republican terminology. That's never a good idea.

Can she really screw things up more than:

- two of the three original Bush "axis of evil" closer to becoming nuclear powers than either was five years ago, while we invaded the one that wasnt even close and now continue to flounder around with no coherent exit strategy

- programs by the NSA, the Defense Department, the Dept. of Homeland Security, and other government agencies to trample on the constitutional rights of citizens.

- a president who blatantly ignores the will of the Congress, on numerous occasions from declaring war to ignoring (or rewriting) environmental policy

- the largest budget deficit and federal debt in history

- the weakest economic growth in five years

- no national health care policy. millions more uninsured Americans and soaring health care costs for the rest of us

- political corruption at levels that make the Clintons look like saints.

As to Hillary's "plantation" comment, it sounds alot like something Newt Gingrich said in 1994 when he was promoting the Contract with America:
Hillary is not my first choice, but perhaps one of the Hillary bashers can explain why she scares them so much. Is it because, as Bush, said recently, "she would be a formidable candidate".

The Trent Lott comment was more damning than the plantation comment IMO, and he backtracked so hard he was tripping over his heels the whole time.

Economic growth has been absolutely outstanding for the last year and a half. Last quarter's numbers were only average but things have been going very strongly for some time.

I concur with Redux. Bush has lied to us over and over again. I think most Hillary bashers are basically afraid of powerful women, and want to presevre our patriarchy. Urbane Guerilla's comment is nothing more than neo-conservative smear and spin. Quite frankly, people who espouse a false sense of ethics and morality, and then bash someone like Hillary Clinton are scum, and deserve to be called on their bullshit. I vote across party lines, and it sickens me when I hear the same tired spin being parroted by less than intelligent jingoists. Take your hate bandwagon and sitck it up your ass, lets talk about getting some ACCOUNTABILITY, ETHICS AND MORALITY back in our government..

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" Thomas Paine

Look for this one to slide right on through the current administration, too.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/20...15630-sun.html

Despite a record-setting 4th Qtr 2005 profit of over ten billion dollars, Exxon-Mobil would like us just to forget the punative damages associated with the Exxon Valdez drunken tanker captain debacle.

UT is right...the economy is doing *great*, especially if you happen to be an oil company. Anyone think the Bush administration won't give Exxon a pass somehow, here, even though they could pay the entire 5 billion dollar damage award, and still have 50% of their Q4 profits left over?

17 years ago... Wow.

We even subsidize exxon. Corporate welfare whores...

http://www.knowmore.org/index.php/Exxonmobil

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072802085.html

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1214

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1698531,00.html

Merely calling names is neither rebuttal nor refutation, Maffick. Cease immediately to believe in that, or I will repeatedly sandbag you for being lame, stupid, and weak. Quite frankly, to borrow your phrase, the neoconservative school of thought, id est, that human liberty and real democracy worldwide is a very good thing not only for the world's peoples but also for democracies (I'm including republics under this general term) such as ourselves, seems to me to be the very best idea to come down the pike since the Libertarian Party. It's kind of hard to object to good government being practiced everywhere, instead of the corruption and tyranny that currently passes for government in too many places.

Then I guess I'll never be scum, as my sense of ethics and morality are real, and much realer than you'd probably like. I bash Hillary C for being an unprincipled, mildly sociopathic Saul Alinsky-type socialist, whose political instincts were formed in a one-party State named Arkansas. You can't call me on bullshit; I never bullshit. I never tell anything I don't understand to be truthful (comedy aside), which you are probably going to have to learn the hard way. You sound like the usual young man here: valiant in his ignorance. You're at liberty to try me any way you think you can, but you will find me an exceedingly tough nut to crack. Others here will agree.

I tend to give people who mistake the tribal customs to which they are accustomed for laws of nature a rather rough time -- at my worst, I oblige them to consider my tribal customs, and why they might have been established.

A good idea and a better policy -- I don't think I've ever voted a straight ticket myself, and I've been voting for thirty years.

One way to have managed that would have been to strip President Clinton of his office for his treasonable misdeeds. Regrettably, this did not happen. Now while conducting oneself more ethically than Ole Possum Head isn't exactly setting the bar high, the Bush Administration has cleared that bar by a handsome span -- and not by virtue of being Republican, either. George is just a better man than Bill, which is why I voted for George both times.

Considering that America should win her wars against tyrannical terrorists isn't jingoism. It is common sense. Do not seek substitutes, any substitutes, for victory against our antidemocrat, self-made and self-declared enemies. For the good of mankind, wipe these from the face of the earth, and convert their supporters into our supporters. We've got the better deal anyway.

It would have if he'd done any. They spent millions of dollars looking for anything they could find, and the only crime they found took place solely as a result of the investigation. Heisenberg comes to mind.

Mr. Gorilla ...do you really believe that the majority of Iraqis are OUR supporters now? Perhaps maybe the Kurds, but they always were more pro-western, as least until we vocally oppose an independent Kurdistan. The new Shiia majority in Iraq is controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution In Iraq (SCIRI) and includes a coalition of other religious parties, each with loyalties to their own theocratic leader (the secularists barely raised a blimp in the voting).

It is just as likely, if not more so, that our actions have helped create a client state more closely alligned with Iran than a secular democracy with any loyalties to the West.

And elections do not a democracy make. The true test of a democracy is the protection of the rights of the minority. Ask the Sunnis how optimistic they are about that.

I'll have more to say but I have an early morning meeting.

I'm also intrigued with your rewriting the history of the Clintons. If only you had facts to back it up. :)

Look, Redux and HM, read Year Of The Rat and The Case Against Hillary Clinton and Sellout and then get back to me. The Clinton Administration kept a gray cloud of scandal and malfeasance hovering over it the whole time it was in. The current assaults on the Bush Administration by partisan hacks who really should be trying to fight a war and not the Republicans don't even compare with this. [File this under "Democrats are stupid and disappointing" -- I'm getting tired of pulling the file drawer open]

Was not Congress, particularly its senior leadership, quite scared of what would come out in the wash -- who was bribing whom -- should all of Bill Clinton's sins be remembered? Seems to me only such fear prevented Clinton from being turned out.

Anyone of normal memory will agree that for its entire eight years in office, the Clinton Administration cared for, and seriously worked for, just one thing: the convenience of the Clinton Administration and the Clintons in particular. The DoJ was subverted into running interference for the Clinton Administration, and didn't do much else. Disgusting, really.

Richard Mellon Scaife kept a grey cloud of scandal over the Clinton Administration. He spewed out unsubstantiated accusations of everything, up to and including dozens of murders, knowing that with enough accusations, people would believe that something had to be true. If there had been anything real in it, the millions of dollars spent investigating by a hostile Congress would have found something. If Clinton had done what Bush has done, and refuse to testify under oath or allow anyone in his administration (or his pals in the oil industry) to, he wouldn't have even done the one thing they did ding him for. Put Bush under oath, and ask direct questions, and see how many counts of perjury you can rack up.

As I recall, the final report of Ken Starr and the OIC, after a four year, $40+ million investigation, found no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Clintons in any of the areas investigated other than lying to the grand jury about his horny escape (which was certainly an indictable offense, but hardly reaching the level of impeachment). The investigation included Whitewater, the FBI filegate and the White House travelgate, fund-raising (Lincoln Bedroom) and whatever else Starr could fish for.

So....UG....where's the beef?

As to the books you cite, I am familiar with Peggy Noonan's "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" where Noonan states right from the start her motives were not to create an unbiased objective report on Hillary. She admits in various sections that the "evidence" she cites is based on "conversations" that she (Noonan) speculates may have or would have taken place.

It was a laughable read. I havent read the others, but I suspect much of the same.

UG...lets talk about:

Bush’s ties to Jack Abramoff and whether he has been running his own version of the ‘Lincoln Bedroom’ scandal by having Abramoff bring big money donors to the White House ?

Or how about Rove’s involvement in the K Street Project, buying lobbyists by filling the lobbying firms with former Bush White House and Senate Repub staffers?

Then there was the GAO report which found BUsh broke the law by using taxpayer funds to pay conservative journalists/talking heads like Armstrong Williams to peddle White Hosue propaganda

Oh. and Chaney's “secret” energy meeting with Enron, Exxon and the other oil buddies to write the Bush energy policy.

Nor to mention claims of vioalting US law and international treaties with the rendition program to send prisoners to other countries to be tortured.

There is so much more, my mind is spinning :)

And we havent even begun to address the domestic warrantless spying program, rechristend by the WHite House as the "terrorist surveillance program." It was interesting that Attorney General Gonzalez would NOT testify under oath at the Senate hearings today and basis his and Bush's argument on supposed points of law that contstitutional lawyers, left and right, find dubious.

Yep....I guess that is why the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committte caved and bypassed long-standing Senate rules to have AG Gonzales testify under oath on legal justification for the warrantless domestic spying program:

UG....are these the kind of thug tactics from a White House that meet your approval or just politicals as usual?

I, for one, believe in the value of independent and equal branches of government to ensure that one branch never oversteps its authority and tramples on the Constitution.

You do believe in the Constititution, don't you?

I'm having some difficulty calibrating my equipment...please stand by.

From The Economist of 4 Feb 2006:

I didn't like Bill and I don't like Hillary. But she's going to "screw things up?" We're looking down the barrel of World War Three because of the redneck scum in the White House and our national Israel fetish. How much worse could it possibly get?

Not if it gets in the way of a good war, he doesn't.

No problem. UG already rewrote it.

We shouldnt be concerned about some unknown guerilla rewriting the Constitution when the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee had this to say about the separation of powers on Meet the Press today:
Shades of Richard Nixon: "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"

A sucks so I'm going to ignore everything bad B does because I don't agree with A at all. The real question to me is where are C and D and E and F and G? Oh yeah, we don't give those groups equal footing in American politics. Witness how fanatacism starts.

Can you push yourself to be even realer and non scummy? Give us please a (your) moral and ethical analysis of the "unspeakable creature" Hillary's colleague Senator Rick Santorum. Or maybe Tom Delay?

I was discussing Doonesbury recently with a very Fox-news friendly associate. He told me he doesn't read Doonesbury because of his anti-Bush bias. When I told him that Doonesbury wasn't saying anything about Bush lately but that a character did just come back from Iraq and was recovering from being wounded, he told me that printing that comic was unpatriotic.

Realistically showing the cost and sacrifice of war is unpatriotic?

All Quiet on the Western Front, The Best Years of Our Lives, and any number of movies have been through this. Some movies are anti-war, some like The Green Berets are staunchly anti-pacifist if not pro-war. None of them pull any punches about the true cost of war. The stated purpose of all US wars is to protect the Constitution and a free and open society. A real discussion about the costs of any conflict are necessary and a real test to find if the Constitution is in danger from forces from within.

BTW, while moving through LAX last night, my more right wing coworkers were confronted with their first celebrity sighting, Ed Asner. Being near an approachable celebrity who was definitely left wing posed a moral dilemma for them. I moved on to my gate but one of the guys I worked with actually struck up a conversation with him. I was asked why I didn't go and talk to Mr. Asner since he was a 'fellow traveller'. Someone mentioned that he supported Mumia, which I don't know anything about. It is funny how people react to celebrities and how people will give them more leeway when it comes to politics.

"My mind's made up...don't confuse me with facts"? :(

That depends, richlevy, of course, on how you define "patriotism".

An argument could be made reminders that "being wounded" as "cost and sacrifice of war" could be detrimental to the morale of the reader, either a soldier or a civilian and so depress their warfighting or support efforts. If war is viewed as a zero-sum game, this reduced effort could be seen as a net gain for the enemy. Behavior that benefits the enemy is unpatriotic. [/devil's advocate]

Having heard and read these kinds of comments myself, and in an effort to give the author of the comments the benenfit of the doubt that they speaking earnestly, this is the best line of reasoning I can come up with. I do not agree with it however. It has many major and fatal flaws.

1 -- It is unrealistically simplistic.

2 -- Even though the steps are few, they are LARGE.

3 -- I have never heard someone make an expression like the one you described whose motives for saying so were not mixed at best.

Simplistic. Only the first link in my chain is remotely likely to be true. I do find demoralizing the thought that many soldiers (a *much* higher proportion than in previous wars**) will be wounded. It's sad to think about that. I'm not alone in this opinion, I'm sure. How one responds to that objectively bad news makes all the difference. Some are excited to new heights of warmaking energy. Some are depressed and lethargic. The range of reponses runs the gamut. It's not a lock that bad news is demoralizing.

LARGE steps. War is not a zero-sum game. There are countless examples of this. Something can be good for both sides. Something can be bad for us and bad for them. Something can be bad for us and neutral for them. This idea "you are either with us or you are against us" is just not true. :smack:

Mixed motives. The speaker of such may believe it's true, superficially, but the intention for saying such a thing has a large portion of misdirection inextricably embedded in it. "I don't want to talk about that soldier's wounds, so I'll soothe myself and heave the conversation over to *your* faults, you unpatriotic menace, you!" I can't be the only one familiar with this attempt at conversational judo.

Such a statement is a reflection of a lazy and uninformed character. Lazy for being unwilling to make the effort to understand the complexities of our society, and the complexities of war, for that matter. You should use your own judgement in such situations to determine the appropriateness of any attempt to comfort the poverty of the speaker's ignorance. The only hope for our beloved republic lies in the elimination of such poverty.



** I expect to be challenged on this remark. I have not looked up the figures to support it. I base it on the reports I have heard about the higher survival rates for the same kind of trauma thanks to better first aid and trauma recovery technology. If fewer are dying, more are living, living wounded.

What bothers me most about the anti-war activists, over and above a chronic problem with confusing "surrender" with "peace," is the antipatriotism that oozes through the lines of their arguments. It doesn't make for clear thinking or fair criticism.

They just never get that we're the democracies, in a struggle with blatant non-democracy.

Non-democracy is the source of our troubles; we don't get into donnybrooks like this with democracies.

V, re your footnote above: the first time we really ran into this where it made a difference was WWI -- better survival rates of multiple amputees. WWII did not experience this paradigm shift because it was an evolution on the previous experience, less the first war's difference in kind than difference in degree.

Define 'like this'.

Supported Contra insurgents in Nicaragua.
Helped overthrow elected prime minister of Iran in 1953-54.
Provided aid to Pinochet after his coup of elected Chilean government.

In many cases we love non-democracies, if the democracies they are replacing are too far left.

I love people who conveniently forget or disbelieve anything they need to in order to support a given position. I hate Bush. I hate Hillary. The enemy of your friend is not always a friend.

And none of these are examples of making us trouble.

The Contra insurgency was laudable, and nothing but: it was a rebellion against a stupid, blundering, incompetent Marxist regime -- just exactly the kind of thing free, adult humans should do. The only Americans discomfited by the Contras were those Americans incompetent enough at life, economics, and human thought in general to be themselves Marxists. I include all the members of Congress who voted against Contra aid among the roll of the dummies. John Kerry opposed Contra aid -- which means the man voted in the interests of Marxist dictators.

I never vote for traitor sons of bitches like that.

I've met a determined Marxist or two (along with one ivory-tower pacifist who liked Marx's earlier ideas, but Marx loses her on his later stuff), but I can't call them bright or wise.

The people who attack America and Americans come from non-democracies, Rich. Do you get it now? That was my point -- not the things you mentioned.

So our regime can support terrorism in another country, even a democratically elected one, as long as it's Marxist. Which, if they adopted a predemption scheme similar to President Bush's, would mean that you would be fine with them retaliating against us.

That's not patriotic, that's just stupid.

It's ok Rich. If the US goes out and fucks with another country, the people in that country might hold a grudge against us, but nobody in others countries would take notice of what we're doing.......would they? :rolleyes:

Regime, quotha! Look, it is evidence that I understand both humanity and this world better than you do that I voted for George, twice. You've never been able to give me any reason to regret it, because ol' George keeps doing things I want done, and avoiding doing the things I don't. This kind of leaves you out in the cold, but I'd say you deserve some time in the outer darkness. Wail and gnash all you like -- you need to be pushed aside, after all the weakness and error of those who think like you.

Your resolute incomprehension that the freer way is the best way is noted and deplored, at least by those of us who really like human liberty, such as myself. An overthrowing of an oppressive regime by a democracy is right and good by definition, Rich. Truly free adult humans have no cause to object. Slavemakers, slavemongers, fascists, communists, socialists, and other objectionables might object, but in the objecting, they demonstrate their utter inferiority and their undue desire to abuse their fellow man. I wouldn't wallow in your slough, Rich.

And no, not being misled by the argument of "moral equivalence," which has visibly suckered you, I would not be "okay" with a "predemption" (I don't think that's a word, perhaps you meant preemption) from the fascist Marxists -- for fascism and Marxism have no real difference: they are about unfreedom and nondemocracy. The slavemakers must be wiped out by the freedom people for the world to be clean. I'd enjoy a clean world. You?

I've been around enough of the world to see what nondemocracies wreak, and it is nasty. We free people must smash them, and all who don't help with the smashing must hold their manhood small, and their heads lowered in the company of their heroic betters. It's better to make freedom, Rich, and hang all who would circumscribe it.

Patriot? Not you, not visibly. Carper, yes. Naysayer, indeed. I'd go on, but it would be merely repetitive. Suffice it to say you're not earning respect here.

I'll only mention Rev. Lowery's no-class speech at Coretta Scott King's funeral to insert it into this record. She had a lot more class than he did; his speech recalled the near-Iranian idiocy* of the Paul Wellstone Funeral-cum-Rally.

And this is a gray-haired old man's idea of something appropriate to say -- at a funeral?! He's old enough to know better! Democrats keep proving they are stupid. Don't vote for them. We need a Republic, and the Dems can't provide one.

*Ayatollah Khoumeini's funeral in Iran. It was so uncontained that the mourners broke the coffin and Khoumeini's body nearly fell out into the crowd.

I voted for a Democrat once.

Whose respect, yours, the residents of the Cellar's, or everyone's? I just what to be sure of the limits of your self delusion.

As far as can see, the only mistake you found in my post was 'predemption'. I appreciate your skill in spotting my typographical error and I will recommend you as a spell checker, if not as much use as a fact checker.

I would much rather hold my government to high standards than to excuse it's failings, for to do so would be a derelection of my duty as a citizen. I am more comfortable judging actions from the standpoint of 'moral equivalency' than falling victim to the trap of 'moral superiority'. You on the other hand, seem willing to shirk your responsibility in this area and still stake claim to a 'moral superiority' that makes no demands upon the conscience and decency of our republic. A man who believes in 'moral equivalency' sees a crime when a gunfight between two drug dealers kills a nine-year-old child. A man who believes in 'moral superiority' forgives the crime if the killer was not the one firing the first shot.

A true lover of freedom will defend the rights of any people to elect their own leaders, free from the influence of foreign nations, even if the foreign nation is ours. You seem to feel that we have some manifest destiny to force our choices upon others. I believe in the destruction of tyrants. You seem to be willing to make an exception if the tyrant is us or those of our choosing. I will defend my freedom, that of my family, my nation, and those of any people who wish to freely elect their leaders, against their enemies, even those who consider themselves "their heroic betters".

I understand the difficulty that a person with a dichromatic worldview can have when subjected to the terrible reality that the 'good guys' can do bad things. I appreciate your need to twice vote for our president in the same way I apprecieate the necessity for the wolf in a pack to sniff the butt of it's pack leader for reassurance in times of stress. It's very heartwarming in a Nature Channel kind of way, and in an anthropomorphic manner can even seem like the choice an intelligent human might make.

It might even make our military more effective to have men like you on board again, who are not troubled by attacks of conscience and whose blind obedience to stated principle with no attempt at verifying the truth of the situation would actually work in a war built on 'faulty intelligence'. Unfortunately, the new weapons we use require a certain level of intelligence, and finding people smart enough to operate them and dumb enough to maintain you narrow view of 'freedom' is an impossible task. It really is a shame, because allowing the real citizen soldiers to come home and guys like you to operate in a brutal war zone would certainly be an effective way of matching skills. Scorpions and snakes belong in brutal wastelands, and guys like you belong in places where conscience is a liability.

As for 'not earning respect', I have to consider the source. Not having your respect to me is like being on Adolf Hitler's shit list. On the one hand, I would consider it a place of honor. And in any case, I would have to consider what cancer of the soul I would have to acquire to 'earn' such 'respect'.

When you finally realize the absurdity of this statement when mixed with all of the others you have made, please call the suicide hotline before you reach for a rope and a chair.

And yet you still advocate the crushing of freely elected governments when their politics do not match yours. Such actions are more suited to the Knights Templar or Waffen SS, two groups that considered themselves 'heroic betters'.

And pay how much, to replace them with what? It doesn't appear to be working. :(

Afghan Man Faces Execution After Converting to Christianity

Islam does not understand Martyrdom, I take it.

I think UG has a military junta in mind with him at the head to lead the civilian weenies into democracy. I think his presidential palace will be named Valhalla or "Hall of Heroes":lol:.

Well that pretty much describes Urbane Guerilla's politics. He just endorsed Castro's Cuba, the American puppet government in S Vietnam, Poppa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti, the military junta in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, the various uprisings in Central America in mythical promotions of a democracy that simply massacred many innocent people, Charles Taylor in Central Africa, and ... UG loves dictatorships that pretend to be governments of the people - and then arbitrarily massacre the opposition. Scary is what Urbane Guerilla defines as a democracy. No wonder he must remind us in previous posts that he is intelligent. We might forget.

It's morally suspect to pick on crazy people, so I'll try and avoid it -- but tw's views just don't coincide with the world I know.

Wanting the Castros hanged for their sins isn't an endorsement of the Castros, not in my book. Castro's Cuba sucks because of Castro's enslavement of it. Cuba may have been a freer place under Fulgencio Bautista! The place could be so nice with a genuine representative democracy governing it. As is well known, a "People's Republic" is an oligarchy and not truly of the "People." Truth in advertising has never been a leftist or communist strong point.

Let's see, and the genocidal abuse of the South by Hanoi was an improvement over Diem's or Thieu's government exactly how? Two million assorted Vietnamese fleeing south of the 17th Parallel to get away from Ho Chi Minh suggests plenty of Vietnamese understood the situation better than you did. Your leftist-blinkered viewpoint, evidenced by your use of leftist tropes, is showing, tw, and it never shows to your advantage, you silly 'bot. This is why I know more about history than you do: you didn't learn it right, and show no interest in cleaning up your act. That means you can only be one thing, tw: a target for smart people to shoot full of holes. Enjoy a happy career as a colander. Leftists are pretty stupid.

"Papa Doc" is usually spelled that way, doubtless from the Creole -- I pay attention to this sort of thing, and you do not. The saddest thing about Haiti is that the place peaked in 1802 and has been in decay since. If there is anyone native to Haiti who can actually govern well enough to bring prosperity to a nation that might be an agricultural powerhouse, I've no idea who they are. They spent the bulk of the nineteenth and a bit of the twentieth centuries shuffling presidents in and out: there would be a short period in which a president and his various cronies would loot the treasury, then be kicked out for looting the treasury by armed coup, which would then install another president who would loot for a while and then step two would be repeated, ad infinitum. (Read America's Small Wars for a nutshell of this.)

I can't see how I can honestly be read to support the Duvaliers, father or son. What were they but corrupt pols in the Haitian mold? Why am I construed to endorse such idiots?

Not a democracy, not endorsed. Again, though, tw's leftist/communist bent is naked to view: the junta and Pinochet were the ever-evoked boogeymen in communist palaver, and tw has internalized it all, and will exhibit these under but slight pressure.

Who mourned the Marxist boob, Allende?

By which I suppose he means the Contras. Unfortunately for this perennial Lie of the Left, the Ortega government he champions as the best thing for all Central America since pan blanco rebanado enriquecido was not merely collectivist, but promoted incompetents into office if their commie ideology was strong enough. That wasn't enough to keep the lights on in Managua, and this would have been the same without a blockade as with. No wonder the people revolted and eventually achieved the Chamorrista government, which was a government not cluttered up with Marxism. Tw's insuperable problem is that he believes leftist dictatorships are supposed to be a protected species. How about human beings, tw? Ever think of them? Not that I see, not when the pravda of soviet-style government stuffs your frontal lobes and clamors in your ears and blurs your sight. You lose track of the millions the commies kill, including the commies they kill.:eyebrow: That's at least forty million dead folks you're ignoring, fella...

I don't know enough about Charles Taylor to beat you over the head with him, so I'm not going to say much; I hear he's a right jerk. Does one have to be friendly with the United States to become a jerk? Doesn't add up to me. (Who's the guy who just stole the Belarus election? Pretty anti-American, I hear.)

Now here is a spectacularly wrongheaded opinion: my hatred of such regimes is not only visible, it is the central reason I post -- yet to this madman tw, this is evidence of a love. I despise these regimes precisely because of their massacres: the Soviets' Gulag (Gosudarstvennie Upravlyaemye Lagery),and Terror Famine in Ukraine, the Communist Chinese Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and Tienanmen Square -- all while pretending at democracy's forms and avoiding any of its substance. The total slaughter just from these two leftist giants goes at least forty million persons (and you can bet these were mainly innocents), probably twice that, and perhaps as many as one hundred million. I'm excluding the casualties incurred in the Second World War, which would close to double the above.

There are more moral means of population control!

Let me see if I have this straight: you, tw, are afraid of the United States of America? Well, that could suit a leftist non-democrat, all right; the USA has been the biggest, strongest, richest and best opponent of the Marxists/collectivists/socialists for many decades. Tw, this still says you are scum, and nutso too. Your posts reveal you are no sort of democrat.

And he follows it with a long post of hate, anger, assaults, and death. Curious how Urbane Guerilla forgets why America subverted Vietnam elections and other facts (he forgot to read) in the Pentagon Papers. Chileans who voted Allende into office and still morn what happened to him. Did your anger cause you to forget that fact? No. But Taylor does as you advocate: "hang all ..." And then you invent massacres in Cuba and N Vietnam. And then you forget American massacres in Vietnam, Cambodian killing fields created by an American invasion that a president said did not happen, or those 98,000 civilians killed due to a 'Mission Accomplished' war. Funny how you forget relevant facts while posting hate.

Urbane Guerilla - there is one thing in America I fear: the brainwashed who never learned history - why did Vietnam request to be a protectorate of the US (that UG ignored when he rewrote history)? Those with 'big dic' mentalities who somehow know military violence solves everything. And those with so little intelligence that they must brag about their intelligence in The Cellar.

UG makes good cannon fodder. All nations need cannon fodder periodically. One reason is for war. Another is to demonstrate how dangerous those without education can be as leaders. Unfortunately, UG, your philosophy is just too consistent with what is written in Mein Kompf. Cast blame on the merchants, intelligencia, and Jews. Who do you blame for everything, UG?

UG post justified by personal attacks again demonstrates a philosophy based in hate, violence, and hanging. UG calls that democracy. He would even praise Pinochet. Convenient that he forgets massacres created when Allende was killed by someone with UG's perspectives. Damning examples of UG philosophy are demonstrated by history. This post for new lurkers who don't yet know what Urbane Guerilla represents: hate that is so common found in fringe extremism and masked in a cloak he calls democracy. So surprisingly similar to what Pol Pot advocated. So similar to what justified massacres in Rwanda and Bruendi. Somehow UG calls that democracy.

Madness and BS, quite unworthy of reply.

And yet you still keep on writing them.

:D Heck, I'm going to start a whole 'nother thread. I've figured out what tw is, and it isn't just ugly...