Howard Dean thinks the Dems need a new message. Well, I was able to get my hands on some of his notes about their new message.
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
ARTWORK: NEW MESSAGE
Howard Dean thinks the Dems need a new message. Well, I was able to get my hands on some of his notes about their new message.
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
Howard Dean thinks the Dems need a new message. Well, I was able to get my hands on some of his notes about their new message.
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
Categories:
Artwork
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That's gotta be the most ironic thing you've ever said, because just about every single bit of it is the exact same thing the Republicans do.
1) Same old hatespeech
2) Blame everything on the Democrats
3) Scare Blacks, Latinos and Arabs into thinking that the Democrats are against them
4) Create new versions of the truth
5) Make more of an effort to pretend to care about the troops... and don't make any more callous remarks about how they don't need armour.
Wasn't Howard Dean going to reach out to the south? Weren't the Democrats going to win the 04 election? I guess they just make list of what they want to do and fail miserably. Ahh, The Deaner, Isn’t he so cute. lol
Za continues to expose his ignorance, especillay every time he comments on American politics or anything relating to the military.
Well, "unknown", given that when a soldier stands up to Rumsie and says "where the crap's our armour?" (to the resounding cheers of everyone around him), and Rumsie's reply is along the lines of "you don't need armour, you'll die anyway", I think I know what I'm talking about.
Given that the Republicans based an entire election campaign on other's hatespeech ("down with homosexuals!"), and they quite blatantly blame the democrats for things that go wrong, the entire war on Iraq was based on lies (please, go ahead and refute that if you will)... I really can't see where you have a leg to stand on.
Down with homosexuals? I don't seem to remember Bush saying that.
the only hate speech i have seen here is the nonsense you spout as you denegrate the brave American soldiers. your arrogance is your greatest weakness and most telling trait. you are clearly a socialist and liberal with no grasp of reality. it does not matter what i say to you, you are a fanatic. you have no facts, only accusations and misinformation. not to mention tin foil hats and conspiracy theories. you do not value the truth you only spit upon it and rewrite history to fit your leftist views. let go of your bitterness and hatred and just stop running your mouth when you clearly dont know what you are talking about. you hate the military yet claim to care if they have armor. you are so full of shit i can smell you from here. it is a fact that clinton slashed our military capabilities during his reign and it is a fact that you do go to war with the Army you have. since day one more armor has been sent to Iraq for our troops. your ignorance about warfare is obvious and you should stick to topics that you might be able to hold water in like saving the whales.
I can quote many Republicans on the issue of homosexuality from the election campaign. I especially liked Alan Keyes statement - he called homosexuality "selfish hedonism", and when asked if Mary Cheney was a selfish hedonist, his automatic response was "Of course she is, that goes by definition".
And Mr Unknown, I have nothing but the highest respect for the American soldiers - I'm just very ticked off that the Bush administration abuses them in the way they do. I'm sorry if you can't see that as "supporting the troops", but I don't have to support the president to do so, and in this instance, I feel that supporting the president is NOT supporting the troops. He's only putting them into more and more unnecessary danger.
Also, if you're going to tell someone to "let go their hate", you shouldn't say that they're "full of shit" - it makes you look like a hypocrite.
Yep, Clinton slashed the military budget - wanna know why? 'Cause it's over funded. If you stopped pumping cash into weapons you'll never use (ie, your nukes), you wouldn't have the armour problem. Oh, and armour might have been sent to Iraq "from day one", but that still didn't stop the soldiers from needing to raid scrap metal piles to create makeshift armour in the mean time. However, my point was not that they didn't have armour (which may or may not have been able to have been helped), it was the fact that Rumsfeld had the gall to then say (paraphrasing) "it's not as if you really need it - armour won't stop you from dying". Now please tell me how I can support such an administration, and really be caring about the people who're risking their lives in Iraq, because to me the two seem mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment