Are you kidding me?
N Boortz carries a story today claiming that "Clinton Justice Department" warrent requirements stopped the FBI from pursuing hints of 9/11. it's a double hitter for the republicans - clinton caused 9/11! we need to be able to search whoever we feel like whenever we feel like it! down with the fourth amendment!
it's too damn convenient. this sounds like a rumor on the level with the one claiming that the democratic vp nominee was responsible for high medical insurance.
do you seriously think the republicans wouldn't have used every opportunity to blame clinton for 9/11? they blame the democrats for everything now, while the dems control NO branches of government.
meanwhile, there is no doubt that republicans are to blame for raising the cost of higher ed for the middle class (slashing the student aid budget), destroying bankrupcy protection, and giving BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to oil companies (no strings attached) and paying only lipservice to fixing education and finding alternative fuels (unfunded mandates, anyone?).
i'm not saying the dems are much better, but the republicans deserve your disgust, not your loyalty.
posted by Amy @ 00:17
7 comments
7 Comments:
Hi. Go here first...
punkinsuburbia.blogspot.com/
Then go here for the other creepy side...
rightfromnewfalluja.blogspot.com/
The second one should make your blood boil...
i have enough anger from the e-mails i get from my dad....
okay, then just go to the first one. Delete dad's stuff....
If you don't understand your dad is that his fault or yours? Because he disagrees with you are you saying he's dumb? Have you really ( I mean really) tried to understand his loyalty? I'm not saying you have to agree with his views; but if, as you say, he's a smart guy than he must have worked out a worldview that explains/understands things you object to.
i don't see where i ever said he was dumb. the problem is not his worldview - it's that he continues to be loyal to a party that no longer represents his worldview. in the way that one is loyal to a bad sportsteam, but in this case it would be a sportsteam that cheated and spit on babies....
I didn't say you said he was dumb; I asked if you thought he was dumb because he disagreed with you.
People perhaps stick to their party for reasons unrelated to their immediate worldview; I believe many Republicans now would go to a perceived viable third party candidate, or even a Democratic candidate that would assuage some of their problems with the Dems. (Hillary? Probably not. Leiberman? Most likely to win over fence-sitters, but I doubt the Democrat base would nominate him.)
I grew up with a generation of Democrats, would have been proud to use any president (even a Bush!) to blow the hell out of a Saddam Hussein, for whatever reason. These are not today's dems; should Dems of the older generation feel loyalty to a party that no longer reprsents their views? In the Washington Post of a few days back, (I think it was the Post, need to check) I saw piece that said the President whose policies across a number of areas (foreign and domestic) matched those of JFK is...Reagan! Should Old Cold Warrior Dems vote for Bush? I almost ask rhetorically...
Your loyalty should be to whatever is best for America and the world, not any political party. Political parties are not sports teams. If the Democrats do something wrong, I'm not afraid to say it. If I don't like the candidate that they nominate, I won't vote for him/her. Parties and politics and the world all change over time, and we should make our decisions based the best information that we have at the time - not emotional attachment to blue or red, donkeys or elephants.
Post a Comment
<< Home