WHY ARE DEMS SO OVERHEATED?

[HereticPB]

The following is a full quote:

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."

"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy." "

Link (http://drudgereport.com/flash6.htm)

[xbdestroya]

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."


Kind of like... the republicans during the Clinton years?

I'm sorry to tell you Heretic, but the Dems are 'heated' right now, whether for good reasons or not, and the cycle will forever continue. Republicans aren't going to control things forever, and when that switch comes, it'll be the Right back in witch-hunt mode.

Of course that won't bother you - just like it probably didn't during the Clinton years - because you only see things from one side of the coin.

I mean, I don't bring this up often because what's the point - but this administration promised two things I remember very clearly back in 99/00: Honor and dignity would be restored to the White House, and the US policy of nation building would come to an end. I don't know about youy, but I see a 180 degrees difference from that pledge and reality.

[HereticPB]

Well they rather did. Nobody in this Administration "yet" has had an affair in the oval office.

Of course, there is no evidence of anything wrong so the joke is on the left once again. Will Mr. Libby go to jail? I do not know but if he does it will be for a short time.

However, that is the problem though nobody did anything wrong in this Administration despite some questionable actions. The left is salivating over this with no facts or any information of any wrongdoing. They are jumping up and down thinking they can take over the White House with court cases. The next step is impeaching Bush but again they will have no facts just some leftwing finger pointing and conspiracy theories. When that does not work, they will try to sue Bush and Cheney. When that does not work they will attack, attack, attack at the juggler but they will always fail. The left is living in the past as they are trying to relive the 60’s and 70’s with Vietnam and Watergate but the only problem is the media is much different today and there is more information that really tell what is going on.

The left is like little kids going to their mommy, jumping up and down, whining “Jimmy stole my ball, Jimmy stole my ball”. The mother looks at Jimmy and Jimmy says, “I did not steal anything”, points out through the window the ball is in the backyard, and says “I do not what is wrong with him we were playing soccer and I won”. The mother says, “You better go home Jimmy my son needs a nap. He always does this when he loses”.

While on the other hand the Clinton Kingdom did all kinds of things against the Constitution and the people of this country. Waco, Ruby Ridge, missed opportunities to stop terrorism, etc.

Despite all this garbage going on people are supporting Bush and Crew. No matter what the AP poll numbers say that come out of a small segment of the population of New York and/or San Francisco.

As usual when someone attacks me from the left, middle, or semi right side of the isle, the attackers attack without realizing that this is not my writing. It is a quote but you all know that don’t you.

The leftwing's stupidity is growing every day but you do not have to take my word for it you can see it plain as day and It is only going to get worse.

[Xerxez]

Ahh...But both sides had some questionable acts in the past. Republicans and Democrats are both "heated" right now. I mean the nation is divided...The only reason Bush is not out of office is because no President in the history of all presidents have ever left office during a war. That's all. I am not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or any other party but I think Bush is in the hot chair and so are the Democrats.

[xbdestroya]

HerecticPB, I don't know man - you're on planet HereticPB I guess. If what you're telling me is you think Vietnam and Watergate were A-OK, that giving up a secret agent's identity (which is akin to treason) is milder than a blowjob, either you don't get much play or you're living in a world where Pat Robertson determines your moral bearings.

Let me ask you, if you could be the one to choose, would you have gone into Vietnam? DId you think it was a good idea?

I ask because I always here right-wingers knock the anti-war crowd from teh Vietnam era like they're anti-American, but I've never heard even one of them state that they actually thought Vietnam was a good idea. So... do you think it was a good idea?

[HereticPB]

Except the person was not a secret agent or even in the field, she was behind the desk. The CIA person told her friends, family, and neighbors she worked for the CIA it was not a secret.

Pat Robertson the Religious guy can kiss my ass.

Your right on Vietnam that was stupid on how it was planned and ran but guess what? A Liberal got us into that and it took Nixon a conservative to take America out of Vietnam. You know the guy that got into trouble with Watergate.

On Vietnam, though we would have won if we were allowed to go in and obliterate the enemy. We were stuck fighting the same hill repeatedly. We defeated the north and then give the land to the south, the friendlies, to hold and the friendliess would loose it and we had to go in again and again take it over, over and over, a viscous cycle.

Let me repeat that the unrecognized war was created by a Liberal and continued with a liberal and it took Nixon a conservative to get us out of Vietnam.

"South Vietnam and allies such as the U.S. viewed the conflict as one based in a principled and strategic opposition to communism, to deter its expansion throughout Southeast Asia and elsewhere."

However, with me saying it was stupid by how it was planned and ran, I agree on the principles of blocking Communism from spreading as this would equate to Hitler and the Nazi's spreading and taking over countries.

It is funny how left wing students rejected the war with two left wing presidents pursuing involvement in this "war".

"Small-scale opposition to the war began in 1964 on college campuses. This was happening during a time of unprecedented leftist student activism."

"Many supporters of the war argued for what was known as the Domino Theory, which held that if the South fell to communist guerillas, other nations, primarily in Southeast Asia, would succumb like falling dominoes. Military critics of the war pointed out that the conflict was political and that the military mission lacked clear objectives."

"On 15 January 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, President Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action in North Vietnam which was later followed by a unilateral withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords were later signed on 27 January 1973, which officially ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict."

If we were allowed to go in bomb the hell out of the place, had strong pinpointed attacks, and better planning it would have been much quicker with less lose of life for the South, America, and uninterested parties as well as less activism.

Watergate was not a good thing. I am not well versed in Watergate so I will not go into that.

However, the left is trying to revive and relive moments of the past, which are in the past and not current to the moment. They may think they are current but they are not.

[kaphwan]

And while we're accusing people of conspiracy theories, what about Joseph McCarthy, a Republican?

My point is that all sides are guilty of this. It's not due to one's political leaning, it's due to one's character, and quite frankly I'm not seeing alot of that in today's politicians.

[plebben]

^^
did anyone ever?

[kaphwan]

^^

:)

[xbdestroya]

Heretic, Vietnam wanted to be communist - why even stop it at all? Sure I agree, it was a Democrat that dragged us down into that mess initially. But there was no good reason to be there.

[Omega]

Sure I agree, it was a Democrat that dragged us down into that mess initially.Yay, admission.

I think the problem "right-wingers" have with the anti-war hippies is that whether we had a good reason to be there or not, you should always support your troops. They are just doing their jobs. A large portion of America turned their backs on the returning Vietnam vets.

[xbdestroya]

Yay, admission.

I think the problem "right-wingers" have with the anti-war hippies is that whether we had a good reason to be there or not, you should always support your troops. They are just doing their jobs. A large portion of America turned their backs on the returning Vietnam vets.

I don't know about all that. If the troops are over there dying for nothing, why be supportive of that? On the contrary - what I'm supportive of is givng them the chance to live out the rest of their lives in a meaningful fashion. If nobody protested these things, what we were doing over in these places in the first place probably wouldn't come into question.

[Omega]

Again, supportive of the war versus supportive of the troops is what I'm saying.

[xbdestroya]

Again, supportive of the war versus supportive of the troops is what I'm saying.


Ok... well, who's protesting the troops?

The only protestors I see are *war* protesters.

[Omega]

I think the problem "right-wingers" have with the anti-war hippies is that whether we had a good reason to be there or not, you should always support your troops. They are just doing their jobs. A large portion of America turned their backs on the returning Vietnam vets.

[xbdestroya]

Well, I don't tink anti-war hippies have anything to do with Americans turning their backs on veterans. WWII vets are the last generation of veterans to be celebrated IMO. Vets from wars preceeding Vietnam like the Korean War are more or less forgotten, and same with vets from wars as recent as the Gulf War.

If right-wingers cared about *that* - the vets - then they would be touting increasing veterans benefits, which was a central point of Kerry's campaign by the way.

It's just a thankless job. You're praised as a group for 'fighting for your country,' but when the war's over - oh well everyone back to normal. Except for those that suffered injuries or loss during that war however.

Look, if wars aren't worth protesting, then there's not one other thing in this world or in this country that could possibly be. Sure a lot of people diagree with the protestors - but it's life or death. If opinions on that level aren't deserving of protest, then protesting in general should be made illegal.

[Omega]

On a side note, Kerry touted veteran benefits because he wanted to butter-up as many a s he could, before they made that documentary.

[xbdestroya]

Well, reasons can be debated. I'm not trying to turn this into Bush vs Kerry by any stretch. Certainly any number of candidates and incumbents (including Bush) have done and said things to curry favor with groups they felt were important to them. My point was not so much that Kerry promoted this (whatever the reason), but rather that Republicans don't - which I feel is a little two-faced considering they paint themselves as the 'soldiers' party.

[Omega]

What problems do you have with current VA benefits? War vets have complete health coverage for life, retirement income and special tax benefits as well.

[xbdestroya]

And do you think that tretirement income is enough for the disabled? To say nothing of the fact that in the 2004 budget, the Republicans were going to cut benefits to those veterans while increasing defense spending. In my opinion our dedication to our troops isn't shown by approving a couple of boondoggle quarter-billion dollar fighters, but rather in perhaps allowing our wounded veterans a level of comfort that let's them know that we value the sacrifices they made on our behalf.

Now, the fact that they're off making sacrifices for causes I don't believe in in the first place is another matter entirely.

[Omega]

Well, my Uncle is a disabled veteran and besides all the numerous health benefits he gets about 2500.00 per month and doesn't have to do anything. We go fishing, he invests alot of his money and he has a good life.

[xbdestroya]

Well, I'm happy for your uncle, though I'm sorry he's disabled. There are a lot of angles to view the whole thing from. I can see where some veterans would view the whole thing and say: "These young kids in Iraq need our support, not our doubt." But then on the other hand you have people like myself who see individuals who signed up for the military to defend our country, but are over there dying and fighting for something different entirely. Because Iraq is not defense for our country. Afghanistan was/is, but not Iraq...

I mean even Bush and Co. acknowledge, it was 'preemptive.' (and without sufficient evidence for such a preemptive action IMO)

To someone like me, 18, 19, 20... seems young. I remember that age and it's easy to get worked up, be idealistic and want to ake a difference in the world. To give yourself over to an ideal and just follow it through with a clear vision. But life is not that simple, and a lot of these kids - I mean it's just not right. It's almost as if I feel all elected officials should volunteer their own children to fight in whatever conflicts they feel comfortable enough sending other folks children off to die in.

That's not what I want to actually have happen - afterall these soldiers made a choice and volunteered - but it provides a striking contrast.

Anyway Aeon for the differences we have in opinion, I respect where you're coming from.

[Omega]

Btw, how old are you?

[xbdestroya]

Twenty-six.

[Omega]

Good times, 25 here...

[xbdestroya]

What are you serious??? Well why the hell is your age in the info-bar set at 15?

Psssh, I thought you sounded really on top of things for a 15-year old. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/winksmile.gif

Anyway I've found for myself 24/25/26 bring with them a sort of mid-life crises. Ah well... good times on a certain level at least. ;)

[D3adcell]

But then on the other hand you have people like myself who see individuals who signed up for the military to defend our country, but are over there dying and fighting for something different entirely. Because Iraq is not defense for our country. Afghanistan was/is, but not Iraq...


Well when you sign up for the millitary you are not going to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it or how you want to to do it. You are a tool of the government basically. Your enemies are not chose by you but by your superiors etc. People should understand those things before joining the military, if they just jump in expecting something else then that is kind of their own fault. They should have done some research or soemthing before jumping into a career like that.

[xbdestroya]

Well when you sign up for the millitary you are not going to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it or how you want to to do it. You are a tool of the government basically. Your enemies are not chose by you but by your superiors etc. People should understand those things before joining the military, if they just jump in expecting something else then that is kind of their own fault. They should have done some research or soemthing before jumping into a career like that.

I completely agree - they totally should. They should, but for the most part nobody researches anything enough at any stage in life - and especially if you're just out of highschool or something like that.

I mean damn, I almost agreed to be recruited into the Navy on a nuclear engineering program when I was that age. Not saying that wouldn't have been cool in it's own way, but those recruiters really push hard. It's not right how hard they push. All in all I'm happy with my civilian life, though I know a lot less about nuclear engineering than I otherwise might have. ;)

And unlike other jobs, once you're in the army, you can't just quit. If my work environment starts going along a route I don't believe in, I can just up and leave.

Maximum respect for the military though, to be sure.

[Bryan]

Wow.

Okay, so if some Democrats want what could potentially be a crime in the federal government investigated, it's inherently a bad thing.







I can't help but ask why you still post. God, somebody get rid of this board.

[Dwhitten]

Well, my Uncle is a disabled veteran and besides all the numerous health benefits he gets about 2500.00 per month and doesn't have to do anything. We go fishing, he invests alot of his money and he has a good life. I wonder what your uncle did to get 2500 per month. My dad lost his leg in Vietnam and only gets about 500.. :(

[kaphwan]

Okay, so if some Democrats want what could potentially be a crime in the federal government investigated, it's inherently a bad thing.

Apparently. But I think his point is that they're going about it to a ridiculous extent.

[Bryan]

Only because the individual in question isn't a democrat, though. There's a lack of consistency in what this guy posts.