Democrat Leaders Become More Radicalized

[stephanie]

Real Democrats need to take their Party Back:cheers2:

Politics Sher Zieve
September 19, 2007

Once long...long ago there existed a Democrat Party in the United States of America that truly believed that country should and must survive. It believed that the reasons for the country’s existence were worth protecting. The members of this political party also believed that it should assist in defending that country and its citizens against all those who would attack and attempt to destroy it. They supported the men and women who enlisted in the US’ citizen-military and some of them had even served in one of its branches. But, that was another time—in another reality. That political party and its members no longer exist.

Instead of the once pro-American group, a new Democrat Party emerged. This one was patently anti-American. This new Democrat Party is being directed and run by the radical leftist-funded-by-anti-USA multi-millionaires and billionaires group MoveOn.org. This group demands unwavering obedience of all Democrat politicians to its anti-war/anti-American tenets.

As MoveOn.org heavily funds Democrats and their Party (claiming ownership of said party), it believes it has the right to call all of the shots. So, it has largely replaced multiple Democrat Party groups. This is the same radical group whose founder Eli Pariser said of the Democrat Party in 2004:

“Now it is our Party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back!”


Read the rest...
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/zieve/09192007.htm

[truthmatters]

You spelled it wrong its Democratic.

[stephanie]

You spelled it wrong its Democratic.

I spelled it right....

Thanks anyway..:coffee:

[Gunny]

You spelled it wrong its Democratic.

Get your fact straight. It was never the "Democratic" party until recently.

[Gaffer]

It's the soros socialists party and he intends to be the power behind the throne. He is the most dangerous man in America and a bigger threat than bin laden.

[GW in Ohio]

Your first fundamental error is labeling people who oppose Bush's Iraq boondoggle as "un-American."

Your second error is assuming that most Americans are with you in supporting President Squinty McChickenhawk's incredibly stupid Iraq mess.

They aren't.

[avatar4321]

Your first fundamental error is labeling people who oppose Bush's Iraq boondoggle as "un-American."

Your second error is assuming that most Americans are with you in supporting President Squinty McChickenhawk's incredibly stupid Iraq mess.

They aren't.

If most Americans were against the Iraq war, we'd be out of Iraq by now.

But Democrats dont have the votes. Considering the overwhelming response of the people against amnesty for illegals, it seems obvious that if there was that kind of support, the Democrats would have acted.

But the people dont want us to run.

[JohnDoe]

GEES, 75% OF THE COUNTRY IS AGAINST THE WAR now....

The problem is that they are all REPUBLICANS supporting the war, so the republicans in office can not change their votes in the Senate if they want to support their FEW loyalists....that may get them reelected.

It is the MINORITY of a few, that have held this country hostage on this imo.

tyranny....

[stephanie]

75%???

Hey, maybe next week you all will have up to 100%...:poke:

[jimnyc]

GEES, 75% OF THE COUNTRY IS AGAINST THE WAR now....

Got something substantial to back that up besides a poll sampling .000001 percent of the people?

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree. I know their are good, decent, patriotic americans who are democrats. Those people need to retake their party. It was once a fine party, even if you disagreed with them. But now, its a party of intolerance, threats of violence and intimidation, calling people the most hideous untrue names, and physicaly assaulting people they disagree with.

Its a sad state of affairs.


Real Democrats need to take their Party Back:cheers2:

Politics Sher Zieve
September 19, 2007

Once long...long ago there existed a Democrat Party in the United States of America that truly believed that country should and must survive. It believed that the reasons for the country’s existence were worth protecting. The members of this political party also believed that it should assist in defending that country and its citizens against all those who would attack and attempt to destroy it. They supported the men and women who enlisted in the US’ citizen-military and some of them had even served in one of its branches. But, that was another time—in another reality. That political party and its members no longer exist.

Instead of the once pro-American group, a new Democrat Party emerged. This one was patently anti-American. This new Democrat Party is being directed and run by the radical leftist-funded-by-anti-USA multi-millionaires and billionaires group MoveOn.org. This group demands unwavering obedience of all Democrat politicians to its anti-war/anti-American tenets.

As MoveOn.org heavily funds Democrats and their Party (claiming ownership of said party), it believes it has the right to call all of the shots. So, it has largely replaced multiple Democrat Party groups. This is the same radical group whose founder Eli Pariser said of the Democrat Party in 2004:

“Now it is our Party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back!”


Read the rest...
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/zieve/09192007.htm

[truthmatters]

Get your fact straight. It was never the "Democratic" party until recently.


Type in democrat party into your seach engine and see what comes up?

You people are the most dishonest people on the planet

[avatar4321]

GEES, 75% OF THE COUNTRY IS AGAINST THE WAR now....

The problem is that they are all REPUBLICANS supporting the war, so the republicans in office can not change their votes in the Senate if they want to support their FEW loyalists....that may get them reelected.

It is the MINORITY of a few, that have held this country hostage on this imo.

tyranny....

you are talking to people who only care about the November polls. I dont believe that many people are opposed to winning in Iraq.

Besides, it wouldnt matter if 99% of people opposed if its the right thing. And winning in Iraq is the right thing to do.

[JohnDoe]

75%???

Hey, maybe next week you all will have up to 100%...:poke:


hahahahaha! well, maybe with my fingers crossed ;), or with a true miracle from God, i could get it to that 100% steph!

[JohnDoe]

you are talking to people who only care about the November polls. I dont believe that many people are opposed to winning in Iraq.

Besides, it wouldnt matter if 99% of people opposed if its the right thing. And winning in Iraq is the right thing to do.

winning what avatar, we already won the war part?

so, what is a win and at what cost is this ''win'' achievable? Is it the 3 iraqi sects signing an oil sharing contract? Is it the 3 sects forming a new central government that actually functions, and actually represents the people of iraq? Is it kumbaya with the sunni and shia?

we have a short window left in my opinion, to call the iraqi occupation efforts a success, and this success to me would be a stable functioning gvt, that could offer and supply the conditions for the people of iraq's economic success.

jd