Don't You Just Love The Dimm-o-craps

[xrayzebra]

Got to really love Al Gore, the real spokesman for the Dimms.
I still have to laugh at his "no controlling authority". Anyhow,
thought you might like a nice read on the Dimms.



"Foot-in-mouth disease
By Oliver North

Jan 20, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Pity the poor Democrats. Five years of George W. Bush in office have driven them to distraction. Their most audible advocates have developed "Mad Mule Malady." The symptoms are identical to "Foot-in-Mouth Disease," and those running for office under the Democrat Party banner this year are likely to find their colleagues' increasingly vicious verbal gaffes to be both memorable and damaging.

The onset of their illness could not be more instructive. As leading Democrats are attacking Republicans, al Qaeda is planning to attack America. That is what we are told by Osama bin Laden, who, in an audio tape in which contents are being confirmed, threatens new terrorist attacks against the United States and our citizens. And once again, in the most important issue of our time -- the defeat of radical Islamic jihadists -- Democrats are proving themselves irrelevant.

This week, Hizzoner Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, used a Martin Luther King Day celebration to urge that the Big Easy be re-built as a "Chocolate City." Not to be outdone by a mere mayor's blatant racism, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., chose an MLK-Day event sponsored by the Reverend Al Sharpton to liken the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives to a "plantation." Her foray into race baiting followed the outburst of her friend and aging entertainer Harry Belafonte who, on a recent visit to Venezuela, described President Bush as "the world's greatest terrorist."

These strange statements might have topped the week were it not for former Vice President Al Gore, who used a speech in Washington to declare that President Bush has placed "our Constitution … at risk," by directing the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor communications between suspected terrorist operatives in the United States and individuals overseas.

Gore, in a lengthy speech to the "trans-partisan" Liberty Coalition on MLK Day, told the audience that President Bush was engaging in "a gross and excessive power grab" and "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." The former vice president, apparently forgetting the record of his own running-mate, added that, "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." And just to make sure that everyone got the point, he claimed that, "The disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution."

Forget for a moment that the person making these charges once claimed to have invented the Internet. Disregard his 1997 assertion that he and his wife, Tipper, were models for the main characters in Erich Segal's 1970 romance novel "Love Story" -- a claim Segal later discounted. Set aside that Gore told a Teamster's conference in Sept. 2000 that among "the lullabies I heard as child," was one with the words, "Look for the union label" -- even though the lyrics weren't written until 1975, for an International Ladies Garment Workers Union ad campaign -- when Gore was 27. Ignore Gore's March 3, 1997 artful denial that calls to contributors from his government office violated federal campaign rules when he declared that, "There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."

Gore's vainglorious fabrications only emphasize his hypocrisy. He is, after all, the person who said of the scandal-tainted administration in which he served: "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the highest in the history of the White House."

But the most recent assault on the commander in chief, like those of many other members of his party in recent months, place us at risk in the midst of a war. As such, they are far more serious than the spiteful, mean-spirited racial taunts of Clinton or Nagin. Though all three politicians' rants were undoubtedly uttered for partisan purposes -- the former vice president's accusations of criminal behavior against Bush threaten serious damage. It's a pattern of speech that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the Democrat party, potentially destructive to the morale of our Armed Forces and inherently dangerous for the American people.

Late last year, Sen. Richard, "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., likened the actions of U.S. military personnel to those of Stalin, Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam Wars said "no" when asked if he would serve today. He went on to discourage others from enlisting in our all-volunteer Armed Forces. Now, Al Gore has all but accused the commander in chief of violating the civil liberties of the American people he has sworn to protect and defend against a brutal, bloodthirsty enemy.

These are not mere "misstatements" in the midst of heated political debate and dissent. The "foot-in-mouth disease" -- so prevalent in Washington today -- may well prove terminal if the American people perceive that Democrats want to win the next election so badly that they are willing to lose the war we are fighting now.


Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, a Townhall.com Gold Partner.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ollienorth/2006/01/20/183131.html

[Oh, Gee!!]

If you want an unbiased opinion, I'm sure Ollie North is the man. Geez, Xray.

[xrayzebra]

^^oh I don't know, I think he did a pretty good job at "show casing" Mr. Gore.
And the some of the others.

[Ocotillo]

Forget for a moment that the person making these charges once claimed to have invented the Internet. Disregard his 1997 assertion that he and his wife, Tipper, were models for the main characters in Erich Segal's 1970 romance novel "Love Story" -- a claim Segal later discounted.

Actually these old canards have been disproved long ago. These were things that the liberal.....errr.....conservative mainstream media pulled out of their rears and repeated ad nauseum until felons like North could repeat it and have a significant percentage of the population think it's actually true.

Nice try Ollie. Shouldn't you been in jail or somewhere?

[Mr. Peabody]

Conservatives crucified Clinton for his "dishonesty," but hold Oliver North in high regard. Am I missing something?

Oh, that's right Ol' Ollie only illegally sold weapons. Clinton, hell, he got a blowjob.

[Oh, Gee!!]

in the Oval Office!!!!! While on the phone!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

in the Oval Office!!!!! While on the phone!!!!!

I have to hand it to Clinton, I know I couldn't have done that.
"hand it" may not be a good term. hmmmmmm!

[FromWayDowntown]

But illegally selling arms -- that's patriotism at its best!!

[xrayzebra]

But illegally selling arms -- that's patriotism at its best!!

It worked. Hell, everyone does it. Just like having sex. :king

[Ocotillo]

^^ Indeed, I just closed an arms deal last week.

And by the way, my wife and I practice oral contraception.

I ask for sex and she says "No"

[xrayzebra]

:lol :lol

Does planned parenthood know about this?

[FromWayDowntown]

I also have to say that I love how Republicans get to decide who are the mouthpieces for the Democratic Party and for the Republican Party.

I'm deciding here and now that Pat Robertson is the voice/spokesman of the Republican Party -- and that his lunacy is the spirit of that party.

(I could certainly make a rather compelling argument that Pat Robertson on the Right is the equivalent of Michael Moore on the Left, but that Michael Moore has never intimated that political leaders be assassinated or that God smites those who take a different political view. It's just that the right-wing spin machine on talk radio has yet to demonize Robertson they way they have Moore, and accordingly, the sheep . . . errr, listeners haven't figured that out yet.)

[JoeChalupa]

The Democratic party will rise again!!!

[Yonivore]

The Democratic party will rise again!!!
From where they sit right now it would be impossible not to rise...up is the only direction.

But, I think it will take a total dissolution of the internal relationships between the whackoes (i.e. Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, Clinton, etc...) and the true "Democrats" (i.e. Miller, Lieberman, and uh...hmmm...well, that about covers it.).

Whatever emerges, the Party of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman won't be called Democrats. That name is toast.

[JoeChalupa]

Damn right and up is where we are going.
I am confident that the job can and will be done.
I don't care what you repub..err, libertarians say and your anti-patriotic babble isn't going to work any longer.
It's time to take the gloves off and start fighting back against the Rove propoganda and take this country back!!

Be afraid repu, err..libertarians....be very afraid indeed.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[Ocotillo]

Lieberman is going to receive a primary challenge this year. He is more popular with Connecticut Republicans than Connecticut Democrats. It is unlikely that he will be defeated in the primary but I did read a quote that we would run as an independent if the liberal wing of the party is successful in defeating him in the primary.

I would personally resist taking "Joementum" on. It's true he goes on Fox News and gives the right wing raw meat to roar over in the world of punditry but for the most part, he votes with the Dems.

[ChumpDumper]

Ollie chastising someone for unlawful activity is the pinnacle of irony.

[gtownspur]

Selling weapons for hostages as compared to selling nucleur secrets for campaign contributions?


GO fuck yourself.

[AFE7FATMAN]

Selling weapons for hostages as compared to selling nucleur secrets for campaign contributions? ...


That's large and continuning campaign contributions,spread out over a few years, not just a one time deal. We're talking about Nucleur secrets
not just a quick Blow Job.

[Nbadan]

That's large and continuning campaign contributions,spread out over a few years, not just a one time deal. We're talking about Nucleur secrets
not just a quick Blow Job.

Kinda like giving bogus nuclear secrets to the Iranians which they are quickly able to correct and adapt to the real thing, no?

[xrayzebra]

Kinda like giving bogus nuclear secrets to the Iranians which they are quickly able to correct and adapt to the real thing, no?

Ah Dan, the guy who delivered the plans told them they were flawed and
he would correct them for a price. Don't think the Iranians figured that
out by themselves.

[JoeChalupa]

Democrats rock baby!!!

[xrayzebra]

^^Didn't you leave out a couple of words? Like: Democrats are on the rocks baby!!

[2centsworth]

I also have to say that I love how Republicans get to decide who are the mouthpieces for the Democratic Party and for the Republican Party.


who are the mouthpeices for the democratic party?

[FromWayDowntown]

who are the mouthpeices for the democratic party?

According to the Right, Michael Moore and Al Gore (among others). I lean to the political left, but neither Moore nor Gore speaks for me, and I don't know that rank-and-file Democrats believe that either man speaks for them, either. But Republicans choose to cast those guys as the mouthpieces for the Democratic party, largely, I think, because they are endeavoring to frighten moderates into believing that only views like Gore's and Moore's are embraced by the Democratic party.

I'm not a member of the Democratic party, because I don't believe in the party system. But I also don't think its cricket for the Right to choose who are the voices of both sides in the debate.

[2centsworth]

According to the Right, Michael Moore and Al Gore (among others). I lean to the political left, but neither Moore nor Gore speaks for me, and I don't know that rank-and-file Democrats believe that either man speaks for them, either. But Republicans choose to cast those guys as the mouthpieces for the Democratic party, largely, I think, because they are endeavoring to frighten moderates into believing that only views like Gore's and Moore's are embraced by the Democratic party.

I'm not a member of the Democratic party, because I don't believe in the party system. But I also don't think its cricket for the Right to choose who are the voices of both sides in the debate.
I ask you a direct question and you gave me a bash the republicans answer.

I'll ask it again, who are the democrat designated mouthpieces of the party?

[hendrix]

He said he's not in the party.

[FromWayDowntown]

I ask you a direct question and you gave me a bash the republicans answer.

I'll ask it again, who are the democrat designated mouthpieces of the party?

I gave you a direct answer -- it was the answer that informed my first post on the subject. I would guess that the Democrat designated mouthpiece, for the moment is Howard Dean, as Chair of that party. That is unfortunate for the Democrats, but it is their choice.

It still strikes me as unseemly for one side to suggest, though, that it may designate mouthpieces for the other party by simply cherry-picking through unfortunate statements and then ascribing those views to the entire party. Like I say, I doubt Republicans would take much shine to adopting the views espoused by Pat Robertson, who is undoubtedly a Republican, but who says some really stupid things.

[2centsworth]

duplicate

[2centsworth]

I gave you a direct answer -- it was the answer that informed my first post on the subject. I would guess that the Democrat designated mouthpiece, for the moment is Howard Dean, as Chair of that party. That is unfortunate for the Democrats, but it is their choice.

It still strikes me as unseemly for one side to suggest, though, that it may designate mouthpieces for the other party by simply cherry-picking through unfortunate statements and then ascribing those views to the entire party. Like I say, I doubt Republicans would take much shine to adopting the views espoused by Pat Robertson, who is undoubtedly a Republican, but who says some really stupid things.Robertson is not chairman of the RNC he's a minor player like Harry Bellafonte.

Dean is a major player and Michael Moore played a huge role for the democrats in the last election. There are some rational people in the democrat party but the lunes are drowning you guys out.

[FromWayDowntown]

Robertson is not chairman of the RNC he's a minor player like Harry Bellafonte.

Dean is a major player and Michael Moore played a huge role for the democrats in the last election. There are some rational people in the democrat party but the lunes are drowning you guys out.

A. Again, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I fundamentally disagree with a two-party system, since neither side can accurately reflect my views (and, indeed, since neither party is confined to any particular viewpoint). I vote for Republicans in some cases, I vote for Democrats in others. I realize that that is a quaint idea to the "world is black and white" gang, but it's mine.

B. Again, who defines who plays a huge role for a party in an election? Are you honestly suggesting that Michael Moore's role for the Democrats was somehow larger than Pat Robertson's was for the Republicans? Have you ever sat and watched Pat Robertson's television show? During the 2004 campaign, that show (5 nights a week, I'm guessing) was a running infomercial for the President's campaign. Pat Robertson is no different in type than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Yet, somehow, the suggestion that Pat Robertson might exemplify and express the true nature of the Republican philosophy is not tenable? You must be kidding me.

When Harry Belafonte's television network starts pimping for Democratic candidates, I'll buy your comparing Belafonte and Robertson's roles in the parties.

[2centsworth]

A. Again, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I fundamentally disagree with a two-party system, since neither side can accurately reflect my views (and, indeed, since neither party is confined to any particular viewpoint). I vote for Republicans in some cases, I vote for Democrats in others. I realize that that is a quaint idea to the "world is black and white" gang, but it's mine.

B. Again, who defines who plays a huge role for a party in an election? Are you honestly suggesting that Michael Moore's role for the Democrats was somehow larger than Pat Robertson's was for the Republicans? Have you ever sat and watched Pat Robertson's television show? During the 2004 campaign, that show (5 nights a week, I'm guessing) was a running infomercial for the President's campaign. Pat Robertson is no different in type than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Yet, somehow, the suggestion that Pat Robertson might exemplify and express the true nature of the Republican philosophy is not tenable? You must be kidding me.

When Harry Belafonte's television network starts pimping for Democratic candidates, I'll buy your comparing Belafonte and Robertson's roles in the parties.
1. some people would say you stand for nothing. however, you've made it clear in this thread and others you more than lean left. back to the topic at hand, republicans haven't chosen the democrat mouthpieces the democrats have done a good job of that themselves. Republican mouthpieces are Rove, talk radio, Mccain, and unfortunately not Mr. Bush.


2. Michael Moore was some sort of dignitary at the DNC national convention if I remember correctly? So to answer you question the DNC.

[FromWayDowntown]

1. some people would say you stand for nothing.

Because I don't allow my views to be governed by the platforms of the major political parties, I stand for nothing? You have got to be kidding me. Independence was once a cherished value in this country. Now you're telling me that independence is a lack of a political mooring? That I refuse to buy into the politics of polarity, I'm without principles? No wonder politics is so screwed up these days.


back to the topic at hand, republicans haven't chosen the democrat mouthpieces the democrats have done a good job of that themselves. Republican mouthpieces are Rove, talk radio, Mccain, and unfortunately not Mr. Bush.

Because right-wing radio has defined those people as the mouthpieces of that party. Again, that's precisely my point. The Republicans have defined who their own mouthpieces are and have undertaken to define who the Democrats mouthpieces are, inevitably resisting the opportunity to characterize Joe Lieberman and those like him as possibly speaking for most Democrats. I find that dichotomy puzzling. That's all.

[Ocotillo]

1. some people would say you stand for nothing. however, you've made it clear in this thread and others you more than lean left. back to the topic at hand, republicans haven't chosen the democrat mouthpieces the democrats have done a good job of that themselves. Republican mouthpieces are Rove, talk radio, Mccain, and unfortunately not Mr. Bush.


2. Michael Moore was some sort of dignitary at the DNC national convention if I remember correctly? So to answer you question the DNC.

Regarding Michael Moore and the Democratic convention. He was there on press pass. I am not going to take the time to look it up but I think he was at the Republican convention as well.

Republican mouthpieces?

Actual party apparatchiks:

George W. Bush
Tom Delay
Dick "Darth" Cheney
Grover Norquist
James Dobson

Actual unabashed media types that don't hide they are:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Joe Scarborough
Pat Robertson


Some weasel media types who won't admit what they are:

Chris Matthews
Bill O'Reilly
Fox News
Campbell Brown
CNN

[2centsworth]

Regarding Michael Moore and the Democratic convention. He was there on press pass. I am not going to take the time to look it up but I think he was at the Republican convention as well.

Republican mouthpieces?

Actual party apparatchiks:

George W. Bush
Tom Delay
Dick "Darth" Cheney
Grover Norquist
James Dobson

Actual unabashed media types that don't hide they are:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Joe Scarborough
Pat Robertson


Some weasel media types who won't admit what they are:

Chris Matthews
Bill O'Reilly
Fox News
Campbell Brown
CNNI would agree with most of that.

[2centsworth]

Because I don't allow my views to be governed by the platforms of the major political parties, I stand for nothing? You have got to be kidding me. Independence was once a cherished value in this country. Now you're telling me that independence is a lack of a political mooring? That I refuse to buy into the politics of polarity, I'm without principles? No wonder politics is so screwed up these days.
give me some examples of where you vote republican?




Because right-wing radio has defined those people as the mouthpieces of that party. Again, that's precisely my point. The Republicans have defined who their own mouthpieces are and have undertaken to define who the Democrats mouthpieces are, inevitably resisting the opportunity to characterize Joe Lieberman and those like him as possibly speaking for most Democrats. I find that dichotomy puzzling. That's all.
Did right wing radio elect Howard Dean? Did right wing radio get Moore the seat next ot Jimmy Carter at the DNC national convention? Place blame in the right places.

[xrayzebra]

Where would you logically start to name the "mouthpieces" of the dimm-o-craps.
Ms. Lewinsky maybe. Okay I am being a smartaxx. How about the NYT, Dan
Rather, Peter Jennings (RIP), Ted Kennedy, John Kerry. Is Liberman allowed, guess
not. Everyone is down on him. Would JFK count? He would not ever be considered
as contender in to days world. How about FDR, he used his power as President to
to untold things. Only the Dimms can answer the question. As a Conservative, who
votes Republican, I can only listen to the dimms as a whole and wonder if they
have any one person speaking for them. I really don't think so because they
don't do anything but oppose Bush, never come forth with any idea. They don't
realize that the US of A is a battleground, and yes it is. The don't know beans
from shinola about anything but so called "human rights", except they don't want
to really protect Americans, just the rights of all humans. Well except the
unborn and the old folks with a problem. If you cant get them coming, get
them going. Where are the dimms ideas? And who really does speak for them.
I damn sure don't know.

[FromWayDowntown]

give me some examples of where you vote republican?

I'm not sure what difference any of that makes.

Nevertheless, if you really want to know: I voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992. I vote, generally, for Republican judges on civil court benches in Texas. I vote for Republican candidates for the representative bodies where their ideas and philosophies are close to my own. For crissakes, in 2004, I voted in the Republican primary specifically to aid judicial candidates I wanted to see in the general election.

Is that good enough for whatever point you're seeking to make?

[2centsworth]

I'm not sure what difference any of that makes.

Nevertheless, if you really want to know: I voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992. I vote, generally, for Republican judges on civil court benches in Texas. I vote for Republican candidates for the representative bodies where their ideas and philosophies are close to my own. For crissakes, in 2004, I voted in the Republican primary specifically to aid judicial candidates I wanted to see in the general election.

Is that good enough for whatever point you're seeking to make?
just curious. What is it about Republican Judges you like?

[gtownspur]

Gawd, what's that smell?....oh yeah, BS!.


"Ugh, i did vote Republican, like for the PTA and a beuty pageant! YOu see, i'm non partisan!"

[smeagol]

Gawd, what's that smell?....oh yeah, BS!.


"Ugh, i did vote Republican, like for the PTA and a beuty pageant! YOu see, i'm non partisan!"
Thanks for elevating the level of the debate. :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks for elevating the level of the debate. :rolleyes

This forum constantly reminds me that many (on both sides) struggle with the concept of independent thought.

[2centsworth]

This forum constantly reminds me that many (on both sides) struggle with the concept of independent thought.
I've never seen anything resembling independent thought from you. It's always left.

[FromWayDowntown]

I've never seen anything resembling independent thought from you. It's always left.

Because only right-wing thought is independent thought?

[Guru of Nothing]

Hey 2Cents, do you want to see a more fiscally responsible administration in the White House?

Only a yes or no please.

[2centsworth]

Hey 2Cents, do you want to see a more fiscally responsible administration in the White House?

Only a yes or no please.No. I'm on record as saying I wish there was a viable alternative.

[2centsworth]

Because only right-wing thought is independent thought?open up your mind and read the threads. You're trying to portray yourself as an independent but I haven't seen a trace of independence from you. If I'm wrong I'll apologize but you got to show me some proof. btw, is only left-wing thought independent?

[Mr. Peabody]

A. Again, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I fundamentally disagree with a two-party system, since neither side can accurately reflect my views (and, indeed, since neither party is confined to any particular viewpoint). I vote for Republicans in some cases, I vote for Democrats in others. I realize that that is a quaint idea to the "world is black and white" gang, but it's mine.



1. some people would say you stand for nothing.

:lol Way to encourage well-reasoned stances and independent thought. :lol