Worse than the Taliban

“President Bush is more dangerous than the Taliban.

This is the type of statement we grew to love from Baghdad Bob. Only a very disturbed person would make this claim.

To wit....


I'm still not voting for the man [President Bush]. He's more dangerous to America than the Taliban.

Phaedrus
12:05:50 AM
03/20/04”

“ignore this ridiculous thread”

“I guess this makes me worse than the boogie man.”

“Ignore phaedrus.

From now on he will be known as Mohammed Saeed al-Phaedy”

“You ever answer your email?”

“Yes, I do.”

“The Gospel According to the Loony Left
Kidnapping Aristide. Plotting with Martha. Shooting ducks. The Bush gang has done it all.


Biography:
Max Boot
Recent Columns:
The Gospel According to the Loony Left
March 18, 2004

The military-industrial-neoconservative-Republican oligarchs who run the country have committed plenty of dark and nefarious deeds in the last few years since they stole the White House from Al Gore.

They demolished Iraq just so Halliburton could make jillions cleaning it up. They helped the likes of Enron and MCI and Martha Stewart to bilk millions of working-class Americans out of their meager savings and to transfer their jobs to call centers in India. They put the fix in at the Supreme Court, sending Antonin Scalia on duck hunting junkets in return for not sending Dick Cheney to the slammer, where he so richly belongs. They even staged the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to destroy our lawful constitutional order.

That's about what you'd expect from the Bush dynasty. I mean, didn't Dubya's grandfather, Prescott, make his loot in shady deals with the Nazis? And didn't Dubya's father, George H.W. Bush, win the vice presidency by making a backroom deal with the Iranians to avoid releasing the U.S. hostages until after the 1980 election? And didn't Dubya himself go AWOL in the National Guard and lie about it? Clearly, the Bush gang is capable of anything. But now they've finally gone too far � in Haiti. They've kidnapped the lawfully elected leader of a sovereign nation. At gunpoint, no less. They've turned a peaceful, prosperous, progressive island like Haiti into a cesspool of violence and poverty. That's a new low, even for "the most crooked � lying group" that John Kerry has ever seen in power.

I can't quite figure out why they would go to all this trouble to subvert a small place like Haiti, but they must have their reasons. Maybe Jean-Bertrand Aristide dissed Bush's old man and now it's payback time. Or maybe Bush is so stupid he thinks Haiti has oil reserves that his Texas buddies can steal. Whatever.

I'm just grateful that not everyone in the nation has been lulled into complacency by the big corporate media while the junta in Washington goes around toppling another democratic government. There are still a few brave souls who are willing to face the fury of John Ashcroft's storm troopers in order to poke holes in the administration's ridiculous account of what recently transpired in Haiti.

Bush's henchmen claim that Aristide wasn't really a model democrat because he advocated violence against political opponents and fixed the last elections. They say he voluntarily left office, and that all the United States did was provide him with a ride out of the country, at his own request, before a mob could rip him to shreds. They even argue � get this! � that refusing to provide U.S. troops to keep Aristide in power isn't the same thing as forcing him out of power. But you don't believe that, do you? Why would the U.S. government tell the truth now? It never has before.

All of this raises grave, serious, really important questions that deserve to be answered. Jeff Sachs, the big-shot economist at Columbia University, wants to know: "What has been the CIA's role among the anti-Aristide rebels? How much U.S. money went from U.S. institutions and government agencies to help foment this uprising?" Mind you, he's not actually saying the CIA "bankrolled and arranged" this "coup." He's just asking a few questions.

And Kerry isn't actually saying that Aristide was kidnapped. But he does have "a very close friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who have made that allegation." With evidence like that, no wonder he thinks "it needs to be explored" some more.

But who could possibly get to the bottom of a conspiracy so immense? All of the top investigative reporters � Gore Vidal, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky � are busy on other projects. Luckily, the Congressional Black Caucus is ready to fill the void.

I take real comfort from the words of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the Black Caucus: "We will not stand around and watch a democracy being taken apart by our own country�. We are not only the conscience of the Congress, we consider ourselves the conscience of the country, and we will get to the bottom of this." What a relief to discover that a neofascist nation like the U.S. still has a conscience.

In the 1990s, the Black Consc � er, Caucus, helped expose the CIA's secret efforts to smuggle crack cocaine into our ghettos. In 2002, former Georgia representative and caucus member Cynthia McKinney revealed that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time but chose to "not to warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered." Now the caucus is going to uncover the plot in Haiti. Rest assured: With these guys on the case, the truth will come out.”

“da da da
da da da
da da da
da da da”

“here's what violin and faddypoo won't tell you, they are really the decievers here....


AND I QUOTE! ! ! !

As we've heard again and again recently, if we are going to beat this bunch of rule breaking GOP misanthropes, we're going to have to start fighting as dirty as they do. I started this thread for one reason, to get everyone's ideas on a list of things we as Democrats can consider to stop the takeover of this country. This isn't going to be a thread for the squeamish, or for the ideologically pure. Best to steer clear if that describes you.

Here are half a dozen ideas to get the ball rolling.

1) Get Republicans fired at your workplace, or fire them yourself if you can � In the belief that all activism starts with the grass roots, do us all a favor, and fire your Republican employees this week. There are legitimate reasons to fire virtually any employee, so avail yourself of them. Not only will it quit the gloating you're hearing around the office, it'll stop those donation checks they are getting ready to write. Might also teach them a bit of humility regarding the poor and the disadvantaged. They can be the "Pioneers" of "Unemployment Window A"

2) Pretend to be a Republican, and then cut down the next Republican that you have a conversation with. - The more public/crowed the place you do this, the better. Use whatever remarks you know are sure to make the intended impression. "You're no better than the liberal scum you claim to hate... get back into the kitchen... Just wait till we win next year and toss peons like you into the field or the workhouse... People in your income bracket don't have the right to be Republican or vote etc." If you need talking points, just observe in a Yahoo political chat room for a few minutes and you have all the right wing bile that you can use and quite possibly all that you can stand.

3) Create, plant and disseminate widely "news stories" that discredit GOP policies � A good way to do this is to print out stories in the visual style of a major newspaper or magazine (don't use the logo or other copywrited material, however) and theme them similarly to the ones that targeted John McCain's platform last presidential election. Make sure not to slander individuals directly. Leave stacks of the printouts where people are certain to find them � i.e. supermarkets, coffee houses, bars, community centers etc. As in #2 make sure to write these from the right wing perspective, for maximum effect on the target audience. Avoid digital media, as it's too easy to fact check, not that most GOP voters care to check these things anyway.

4) Contact the IRS and anonymously tip them off regarding prominent GOP contributors in your area. � Lets face it, they are likely tax evaders in any case (that's why they are GOP), so might as well have them go thru an audit and feel a bit of what it's like to have a hostile government prying into their affairs. The tax money you shake free will be a little payback to your community for the egregious tax cut they undoubtedly are enjoying.

5) Make sure that you're the only ride on voting day for a group of hard right types who live out of the way, and then don't show up. � This works best in low population density areas and poor right wing communities. Cultivate a group of right wing friends and make sure they depend on you for the ride on Election Day. Then don't show up. Every vote they miss is an uncontested vote on the blue side of the aisle. The right needs a taste of Florida 2000.

6) Impersonate Linda Tripp. � Whisper into the ear of GOP associates to encourage and get dirty laundry regarding their improprieties, and then make sure that information gets into the wrong hands. It's hard to brag about family values or think about politics when you're in a divorce court.

Are you really serious about winning the culture war? Do you mean it when you say it's time to fight fire with fire? Then channel that anger and let's hear some ideas. Given the thin skin of most conservative ideologues, it won't take much to have them running far away from such policies and tactics so we can all enjoy proper, principled political discourse in the country again. First, however, they need to be taught that fighting dirty burns them as much as it burns anyone.

BTW- if you want to take action beyond the intellectual consideration of these ideas, please do so on your own. This thread is meant for the mental exercise of these ideas. Don't involve DU.

And a response from another loyal Democrat:

tedoll78: I used to be an "I-won't-do-that" person, but now I want to win and prevent the major harm that the GOP would do. In the end, having more liberal leaders in power will save the country and world from more heartache/chaos/destruction/etc; the change for the positive worldwide will more than pay-back for these tactics.

Like someone above said, let's break some eggs.

My starting proposals:

1) Hand-out faulty polling locations & directions in GOP-heavy voting districs. Let's see how they like it for a change.

2) Go door to door as a GOP volunteer with absentee ballots; the GOP loves to vote absentee, right? And then throw the filled-out ballots away. Either that, or give them a faulty ballot with a bad address on the envelope, and then they won't vote on election day since they'd think they've already voted.

3) Volunteer for a GOP phone bank operation and talk dirty to old people on the phone. Think of the most obscene, anus-licking things you can comprehend, and go for it! And be sure to identify yourself as a Bush supporter.

4) Wear an 'I love george w bush' t-shirt in public and act like a major ass. Moon people, fart loudly, call people offensive names. Here's a favorite: Go to football games where the Army is playing and accuse the other team's fans of being unpatriotic for rooting against the Army. In other words, be absurd!

5) When a polling organization calls, give answers such that they reflect very very very poorly on the nation's condition. Tell them you're unemployed, or tell them that you make <$8000 a year.

6) Panhandle in GOP/swing neighborhoods where it isn't illegal. Get as many people as you can to join you; create the image of crisis. Hold-up a sign saying that you were downsized, or that your job was sent overseas. If you're a veteran, emphasize your loss of benefits.

7) Drop-off a stack of fliers at veterans' halls, hospitals, etc detailing the betrayal of the Bush administration. And, if possible, ask them if they're enjoying their tax cuts.

I just thought of these seven off the top of my head. Surely we can come-up with some creative strategies for making the GOP's image as irrespectable as possible!

There you have it, my friends. But remember ... it's the Republicans who are evil ... right?”

“Lapiss and al-Phaedy,

A couple of funny guys.

They would sell out the country to Al Qaeda.

If it would beat President Bush.”

“Speaking on CNN's "Crossfire" on November 12, 1997, Kerry criticized the United Nations, France and Russia for not being tougher on Iraq. Not only that ... he even pointed out that the Clinton administration didn't need UN approval to act on Iraq. "The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests." He also went on to criticize the French for not being more helpful, and said that the issue wasn't just about weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq's breach of agreements. In other words, he said the same things then that the Bush administration has been saying all along. Holding Saddam Hussein accountable is only a good idea if there's a Democrat in the White House.

It's too bad for the Democrats that Kerry already has the nomination sewed up. They rushed the process, and now they've wound up with a lemon and no return policy. I guess they can always vote for Nader”

“Nixon,Carter,Reagan,Bush#41 and Clinton were all worse than the Taliban. Bush#43 is worse than all of the above.Therefore Bush#43 is the Taliban.”

“More on Trade and Commerce
Job Losses and Trade: A Reality Check
Smaller is Better
Some job angst flies against experience

Debating job growth
Emmett Tyrrell
March 11, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Recently, I have been making my own scholarly contribution to political scientists' understanding of the 2004 election by identifying a rising new constituency within the electorate, the moron vote.


Those who compose it are the angry, the fearful and the unaccountably neurotic. When they beheld Dr. Howard Dean hollering in public about how very angry he was, they thought of Abraham Lincoln. Now, they behold Sen. John Pierre Kerry boasting of all the hair he has on his chest, the medals on his wall and his grim plans for President George W. Bush, and they think of John F. Kennedy or maybe Robespierre -- Kerry is still very French-looking, n'est-ce pas?

Yet Kerry has to cast his net more widely if he is to give the Bush of his tirades the promised heave-ho. Thus, he now goes beyond anger and personal braggadocio to speak of economics and foreign policy. In doing so, he is not merely addressing our country's morons. He is addressing the understandably confused.

For whatever reason, in addressing them he merely adds to their confusion. Possibly he, too, is understandably confused. He sees hostilities in Iraq that have gone on beyond four months and cannot understand why our troops are not en route home. Certainly, his experience in war lasted only four months and then it was homeward bound. He sees an economy that is growing at a brisk 4 percent or more and sees economic despair. He is the perfect candidate for the understandably confused.

Yet elections are not supposed to spread confusion. Those of us who relish democracy always hope that an election is an opportunity for debate and for spreading the truth. Once the Massachusetts Braggart has quieted down, allow me to file two caveats against his lamentations. First, in Iraq, we have won the war and seem to be winning the peace. Though it would be imprudent for our government to mention it, our casualties have dropped dramatically this past month. The Iraqis may soon be governing themselves with minimum involvement from us or our heroic allies, the French and the Germans.

As for the economy, its robust growth suggests that job growth must be strong also. Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes data declaring job growth is low, only 21,000 new jobs in February as opposed to the forecasted 125,000. Are these statistics sound? Kerry does not ask that question, but some economists are asking it. One, Brian Wesbury, a man distinguished for his reading of economic trends and business achievement, has looked carefully at the economy and found job growth where others have failed to look.

Wesbury claims that in the New Economy, invigorated as it is by developments in software and technology that make founding small businesses more feasible, job creation is missed by the old way of measuring it. The old way was through the job survey called the Establishment Survey. The new way is through the survey called the Household Survey.

The Establishment Survey takes into account business establishments nationwide by measuring payroll employment. "But," writes Wesbury in the April issue of The American Spectator, "payrolls are not where the action is today. The real growth is entrepreneurial. Self-employment and Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) are growing like weeds, and these types of employment do not fit into the normal payroll." They do fit into the Household Survey.

Whereas the Establishment Survey tells us that since the end of the recession in November 2001 payroll jobs have declined by 718,000, the Household Survey indicates 1.9 million jobs have been created. Naturally, Kerry, the candidate of confusion, relies on the Establishment Survey. I doubt he has ever paid any attention to the Household Survey.

Wesbury believes that he should. It not only calculates job growth more accurately than the other survey, it also has tracked a trend. For two decades, self-employment has represented an ever-larger percentage of post-recession job growth. In the months following the 1982 recession, self-employment accounted for 5.4 percent of job growth. In the months following the 1991 recession, it accounted for 9.3 percent of job growth. "Since the recession ended in November 2001," Wesbury writes, "total household employment has climbed 2.1 million, and self-employment has grown by 644,000 ... 31.1 percent of all job growth in the Household Survey."

Is it possible to have the healthy growth we now have and a decline in jobs? The understandably confused are confused by this, as well they should be. If Wesbury is right, the confusion is caused by economic statisticians' failure to keep up with our dynamic economy. The economy is growing, and so is the job market.”

“WoW! The right only has bacpac and Stratdewd here to defend the faith!

Match made in heaven :)

You two make a cute couple! Whens the wedding?!?”

“ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MEDIA BIAS

I may be wrong here, but isn't it John Kerry who has been telling anybody who cares to listen that it is the Republicans who have been and will be launching vicious horrible attacks on him? Yup. I think that's about right. It's a basic part of sKerry's stump speech. "The Republicans will launch ugly, terrible attacks against me." So then sKerry is caught speaking to some union sheet metal workers in Chicago. He doesn't know the cameras are still on .. but they are, and they catch him saying "this is the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." Who? Why, the Bush Administration, of course! Kerry says that the Bush campaign is going to attack him, and then pulls that "crooks and liars" line.

Well .. the Kerry folks had to really put their heads together on this one. Finally they came up with a spin that they think will work. Kerry, you see, was only talking about the "Republican attack machine," not necessarily Bush and his associates. Now come on ... let's give him credit here. First Kerry says the Republicans are going to attack. Then he attacks the Republicans and gets caught. Then he says that he was only attacking the Republicans who were going to attack him. Yeah ... that works.

Of interest here is how some elements of the media have treated this story. The Associated Press covered Kerry's appearance at the sheet metal plant in Chicago. The AP story that followed the headline read: "Kerry Wants Deeper Middle Class Tax Cuts." The reference to Kerry's "crooks and liars" comment was buried in the middle of the story.

The Associated Press was also present earlier in the week when President Bush made a speech on economic policy. During that speech he detailed all of the positive news about America's economic picture, and mentioned that the the Democrats were attacking an economy that was strong and getting stronger! So ... what is the AP headline for this story? "Bush Blasts Democratic Attacks on Economy."

Do you see the difference here? When George Bush gives a speech on economic policy, the AP says he is blasting the Democrats. But the headline for the story detailing Kerry's "crooks and liars" comment only mention's Kerry's desire for deeper middle class tax cuts.

Media bias can be very subtle while being very effective. In both Bush's appearance and Kerry's appearance the candidates made positive statements about their own policies, and negative statements about the opponent. The headline for Kerry's story highlights his policy ideas, the headline for Bush's story highlights his criticism of Democrats.

Par for the course, my friends ... and there's going to be a lot more to come.”

“Lapiss, It looks like you and al-Phaedy have a thing going on.

Deliberately trashing the thread was a real mature move.

The type of thing one lover might do in defense of another.”

“Trashing trash. How immature!”

“"Lapiss, It looks like you and al-Phaedy have a thing going on.

Deliberately trashing the thread was a real mature move.

The type of thing one lover might do in defense of another....."


No I'm not, YOU ARE!No I'm not, No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!YOU ARE!No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE! No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!
No I'm not, YOU ARE!


bacpac, you're the LAST person on this board that should be handing out advice, or calling people gay. You've admitted to wearing womens underwear and you post under a womens moniker. You truley are dense.”

“The reign in Spain falls mainly on the lame
Ann Coulter
March 18, 2004

After a terrorist attack by al-Qaida that left hundreds of their fellow countrymen dead, Spanish voters immediately voted to give the terrorists what they want � a socialist government that opposes America's war on terrorism. Al-Qaida has changed a government.

Until the bombings last week, the center-right Popular Party of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been sailing to victory. But then the al-Qaida bombs went off and Spaniards turned out in droves to vote against the government that had been a staunch Bush ally in the war on terrorism. (I guess it's OK for a Spanish socialist to "politicize" a terrorist attack just to get elected.)

In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.

Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq /al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.

The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"

One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.

After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.

Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it.

But, like the Democrats, the Spanish hate George Bush more than they hate the terrorists. Zapatero said the war in Iraq was based on "lies" and called on President Bush and Tony Blair to "do some reflection and self-criticism." So don't think of the Spanish election as a setback for freedom � think of it as a preview of life under President John Kerry!

What kind of lunatic would blame Bush for 200 Spaniards killed by al-Qaida bombs? Oh wait � Howard Dean just did. Summarizing the views of socialists everywhere, Dean said: "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend."

Yes, with 1,700 dead or injured Spaniards, George Bush certainly has some explaining to do. What have the terrorists ever done besides kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians? Bush isn't fully funding "No Child Left Behind," for God's sake!

Before he was put into office because he supported policies favored by al-Qaida terrorists, appeasement candidate Zapatero said: "I want Kerry to win." Kerry is also supported by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who broadcasts Kerry speeches over Radio Pyongyang with favorable commentary.

So now Kerry really does have two foreign leaders on record supporting him: a Socialist terrorist-appeaser and a Marxist mass murderer who dresses like Bea Arthur.

Zapatero predicted that his own victory would help the anti-war party "in the duel between Bush and Kerry." Would you mind repeating that, sir? I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving.

However Spain's election affects Americans, we can be sure that Spain's surrender to terrorism hasn't been lost on the terrorists. It's difficult to imagine the American people responding to a new terrorist attack by deciding to placate the terrorists, as the Spanish did. A mollusk wouldn't react that way to an attack. Only a liberal could be so perverse.

No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it.

Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a "city upon a hill." We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies." He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980.

With the Spanish election, we are witnessing a capitulation to savagery that makes full-scale war inevitable. The Democratic candidate wants to represent godless Europeans. The Republican candidate wants to represent Americans. As Winthrop said: "The eyes of all people are upon us."”

“It's not Rush, but just as goot!

Ann "everyone who doesn't think like me should be rounded up and shot" Cloutier.

Why does she denigh her French backround?

Maybe she was felt up by her French uncle or something.....”

“you're going to hell for reading that shit --- much less posting it in a public place.

Ever see those scenes on South Park of Saddam in bed with Satan? You'll be between them getting double-teamed.

Enjoy!”

“get off the crack pipe tilt”

“FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
U.S. Communists
to support Dems
Party calls for 2004 'united front' in No. 1 priority of beating Bush
Posted: October 2, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



The Communist Party USA will not run a candidate for president, will not support progressive third-party bids but will instead throw its support behind the Democratic Party in an all-out effort to defeat President Bush and the Republican Congress, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The giveaway of the party's plan, reports the online intelligence newsletter, is a frequent call for a ''united front'' to defeat Bush by major figures and spokesmen. This is the language employed by the party in the past when it has supported liberal candidates and issues not necessarily under party discipline, says G2 Bulletin.

As far back as April 17, Joelle Fishman, chairwoman of the party's political action committee, wrote in a report to the national board that Communists should not field a candidate of their own in 2004.

''Our presidential campaigns in the past were a great opportunity to project our program, and I'm sure we will find ourselves at that point some time in the future,'' she wrote. ''At this moment, we will convey our program best by working with all out might to build the broadest possible coalitions, fronts and networks that can defeat the undemocratic, imperialistic Bush war machine. This is our responsibility to our own class here and internationally.''

Fishman also mentioned discussions with the Green Party and other ''left'' organizations in which the Communists have argued against presidential and congressional candidates by third parties, adding, ''one united push is required to defeat the Republican stronghold.''

''The discussion will require a special approach with groups like the Campus Greens and the Peace and Freedom Party in California,'' she continued.

At a June 29 meeting in New York, the national committee approved a resolution making the defeat of Bush and the Republican majority in Congress the ''number one priority.''

''Discussion is also taking place within the Green Party about whether to run a presidential candidate this year,'' said a report to the national committee this summer. ''A section of Greens have come to agree that the defeat of Bush is the number one issue.''

However, not all of the Democratic presidential candidates energize the Communists. While the party has not yet weighed in on the candidacy of Gen. Wesley Clark, officials speak and write critically of Sen. Joe Lieberman, ''who has played an enabling role of the Bush administration by leading on compromises that undercut stronger Democratic proposals, especially in foreign policy.''

The party is also leery of John Edwards and Richard Gephardt because of their association with the less-progressive Democratic Leadership Council.


Dennis Kucinich, Co-chairman of Congressional Progressive Caucus

The party has nothing but praise for Sen. John Kerry, Bob Graham, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun. But, judging from the accolades and laudatory comments, Dennis Kucinich, the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is by far the favorite Democratic candidate. His co-chairwoman is Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who has a career-long history of associations with Communist Party and extremist groups and individuals.

Lee is a long-time friend of Communist Party militant Angela Davis, a former Communist Party presidential candidate, and succeeded another radical from the city of Oakland, Rep. Ron ''Red'' Dellums. Lee paid her establishment political dues � first as an aide to Dellums and later as a California assemblywoman and state senator. However, less known is Lee's service on the national coordinating committee of the ''Committees of Correspondence,'' an organization that splintered from the Communist Party USA in 1991. Davis, the three-time Communist Party candidate for vice president of the United States, served by her side.

''The field of Democratic presidential hopefuls is not monolithic,'' explained a report by Fishman to the CPUSA national committee June 28. ''Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rev. Al Sharpton are playing a radicalizing role Sharpton is campaigning for constitutional amendments to guarantee the right to vote, to education and to health care. Kucinich has pledged his first act as president will be to repeal NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization). He has introduced and co-sponsored legislation to form a Department of Peace, to abolish the death penalty and to end pre-emptive military policy, among many others.''

''It will take an extraordinary united all-people's front with a movement on the ground to defeat the Bush right-wing agenda in 2004,'' explained a report to the CPUSA national committee June 28, again written by Fishman. ''It can be done with the combination of the labor vote, the women's vote and African-American and Latino vote, combined with the youth vote, the peace vote, the environmental vote, the senior vote, the farm vote, etc., all of whom are pledged to work as they never have before.''

Kucinich's Progressive Caucus is a socialist-leaning bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber. Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of the Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to ''socialism'' in the eyes of most Americans.

''Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work,'' explains an organizing document of the DSA. ''The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals.''

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring ''The Internationale,'' the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was ''Red Revolution'' sung to the tune of ''Red Robin.'' The lyrics went: ''When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ...'' Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was ''Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?'' The lyrics went: ''Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.''

In the last three years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption. ''The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries,'' the group's statement of purpose explains. Most of the members of the Progressive Caucus, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, opposed authorizing the war on Iraq. In fact, most Democrats in the House opposed the war resolution. Then House Minority Leader Gephardt and 81 other House Democrats supported the move.”

“Open wide........”

“dood, you are not intellectually honest. that's ok, i'll get over my dissapointment.......

off to the piatball store!

buh bye now”

“"off to the piatball store!"



LOL! WTF is a piatball store?

LFMAO!!!!!!!!”

“Paint balls are made of fish guts---do people eat them?”

“Mmmmm, paint balls in a red sauce.”

“Did we just lose the war?

In a move that some say appears ‘a total capitulation’ to pro-Taliban forces, Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and is withdrawing military forces in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there will not engage in terrorist activities.”

“I think the Dubya Regime lost interest in Afghanistan...........no oil.

This country formed an unholy "alliance" with Pakistan in order to spy on the U.S.S.R.
India refused to allign itself with either the U.S. or Russia so the U.S. government shopped elsewhere.......Pakistan.
U-2 spy planes used an air base at Peshawar, Pakistan from the '50s until......?
Did the U.S. "give" the bomb to Pakistan to balance with India for this privilege?

When the chickens come home to roost I reckon they schit all over the house.”

“Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Pervert Musharef is our friend
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm”

“Reformed Lurker has already covered this subject, silly libbies.”

“Did the U.S. "give" the bomb to Pakistan to balance with India for this privilege?

My god that's insightful. Certainly no one can assail MarkO's mighty authority in political matters.”

“Reformed Lurker has already covered this subject, silly libbies.

Oh, right. Thanks for the pointer.

You mean we should have complete control of Pakistan? A country we are not at war with?
LOL

So we're at war with a country? Really? GWOT stands for.....what?”

“Sorry to burst your ego bubble, kleetnypoo.”

“Kleetn, you need to understand that you have to get Stove Stomper's permission to post new threads, ja ... or else!”

“"My god that's insightful. Certainly no one can assail MarkO's mighty authority in political matters.”

Look who's got a "god" now!

Oh come on, you have no trouble assailing anyone, Pooch Boy.

Geo knows what he's talkin' about!
The SS will come down on you with jack boots, Kleetn......be afraid!”

“[VBG]”

“Don't #&%!$ with the netnanny....”

“Now Tilt, don't talk about a sweet guy like Geobeet that way.”