This article describes the latest thought process in a Democratic party totally devoid of any sense of reality. The DNC and its fellow travellers relentlessly rehash baseless allegations and repeat their attacks in their effort to undermine America and its ability to defend democracy and the U.S. in particular. Their aim is a castrated America reduced to the loweest common denominator and embracing the socialist nightmare. The democrats are "our insurgents" making war on our country and its people. Patriots? They are traitors who will be crushed under the heels of real patriotic Americans.

by MrT (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 6:35:57 AM

  (0+)

I am always amused by people who hide behind fake names, who make remarks like this. Sounds like right out of one of the toxic right wing talk radio idiots mouths-- Michael Savage, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh... They are the real traitors. Rob Kall, editor

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 6:35:30 PM

  (0+)

At Human Rights Watch, in their Rwanda paper, I took note of the following. Could this Mr T and BushCo have studied under this Mucchielli? I ask, cos it sure sounds like they all learned fearmongering at the same school, as expressed here, in part: "Genocide: Ideology and Organization--Among the false ideas drawn on by political leaders and propagandists backing Habyarimana were the following: -Despite the 1959 revolution, Tutsi continued to enjoy higher status and greater wealth than Hutu and were in some way responsible for continuing Hutu poverty. -Tutsi posed a danger to Hutu, who were always the victims, whether of Tutsi military power or of Tutsi cunning, and so Hutu had a right and a duty to defend themselves. -From 1990 through the 1994 genocide, propagandists used newspapers and radio to disseminate ideas hostile to the Tutsi. It was particularly the last idea — that Hutu were threatened and had to defend themselves — that proved most successful in mobilizing attacks on Tutsi from 1990 through the 1994 genocide. This idea may have been influenced by a study of propaganda methods. Among documents found by Human Rights Watch in a government office after the genocide was a set of mimeographs summarizing methods of propaganda as analyzed by French professor, Roger Mucchielli, in a book, "Psychologie de la publicité et de la propagande". One of the methods described is persuading people that the opponent intends to use terror against them; if this is done successfully, 'honest people' will take whatever measures they think necessary for legitimate self-defense." http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0406/4.htm

by Sigrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 9:53:18 AM

  (0+)

...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information: -This article describes the latest thought process in a Democratic party totally devoid of any sense of reality. It doesn't describe a thought process at all. It describes what is happening in Illinois. A thought process description or position paper is completely different. - The DNC and its fellow travellers relentlessly rehash baseless allegations and repeat their attacks in their effort to undermine America and its ability to defend democracy and the U.S. in particular. I'm not a member of the DNC. Most Democrats were completely unaware of the Illinois legislature initiating this action two days ago. It happened completely under the radar screen. I would be interested to hear which allegations you believe are baseless. To be baseless means that they have no truth to them. Most of them are not in dispute. You can argue that they do not constitute a crime, but that is not what you are saying. As with most Republicans, you have little real understanding of most of the words you speak or type. Also, perhaps you could direct me to how any of the allegations pertain to anything that would defend America? You realize that there are secret courts that would legally provide the President, the FBI or other agencies a secret wiretap against those who might be a threat to the country. Doing so without even that formality is a felony and raises questions about whether mere political opponents and not just threats are being monitored. - Their aim is a castrated America reduced to the loweest common denominator and embracing the socialist nightmare. Lowest common denominators like torturing people? Lowest common denominators like holding people without a trial? By the way, Democrats are not socialists or communists or any other term of Demagoguery you Republicans like to throw out there. There is a Socialist and Communist party in the US. If that is what I or any other Democrat believed in, that is the party I would join. In fact, the largest socialist institution in the US is the American Military. - The democrats are "our insurgents" making war on our country and its people. Examples? Citations? None? Didnt think so. - Patriots? They are traitors who will be crushed under the heels of real patriotic Americans. Ah, yes, threats of violence. Who needs elections? Who needs due process? The real question is, do people Republicans like you prefer to be in power prefer to be called Fuhrer or Il Duce?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 7:02:43 AM

  (0+)

I think it is this attitude that only spawns arguments and simply gets NOWHERE: "...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information" Yes, because all Republicans seed wrong information and lie. Absolutes like this make me sick. Shut up until you have something realistic to say. This is exactly why so many people hate politics.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:36:44 AM

  (0+)

And, not only is that false, but it doesn't reflect very well on you and your opinions. That you would stoop to saying 'it has to be a republican because he's lying' really speaks volumes about your opinions. Grow up.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:38:30 AM

  (0+)

If you dont like my opinions or what I write, don't read it. You are free to do that, and you are free to move somewhere where the government censors things you dont like. You are also free to read only websites like Free Republic, which it would seem would be more to your liking.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:32:41 AM

  (0+)

sleser001, This is where your train derailed by accepting his re-framing of the argument. I agree with your post, but you allowed yourself to be misdirected right here. It doesn't really matter who wins this argument of logic. Rather then argue, acquiesce the small point. This ends the debate and your posted comment stands without further obfuscation. But I can tell you this, there are a million people in Illinois ecstatic to see their State Legislature undertake House Rule 603 legislation.

by Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 1:47:05 AM

  (0+)

No Comment Entered

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 2:13:54 PM

  (0+)

If you re-read my response, it doesnt say "All Republicans" lie and provide false information. Obviously, you never took a class in mathematical logic or philosophy or if you did, you didnt pass it. My assertion is that if you see a post full of lies, deception, demagoguery and devoid of facts and citations it will almost ALWAYS be from a Republican. Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, as a rule, are much more into reading multiple sources and providing links and facts to back up their assertions. Sure, there are Republicans who don't lie, but you dont see that type of screed like that defacated forth from Mr T from Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. It is routine from the other side however. If you doubt me, I invite you to browse Free Republic, the most popular Republican site on the web, http://www.freerepublic.com . After you have read a few threads over there, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 5:38:40 PM

  (0+)

Your explanation: My assertion is that if you see a post full of lies, deception, demagoguery and devoid of facts and citations it will almost ALWAYS be from a Republican. Original: ...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information: "HAS TO BE" implies that if it has lies, it must be from a republican. That is very clear. Besides, if you write your articles only for people who "took a class in mathematical logic or philosophy" that is a pretty narrow minded approach. And if it is obvious to you that you can interpret my intelligence from an internet post, you better rethink your views. I'm sorry if you are embarrassed on your own blog.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 6:49:06 PM

  (0+)

you didn't understand what I wrote, and now you are justifying your ignorance by suggesting my writing is flawed because I do not cater to the lowest common denominator reader who, like you, does not understand basic logic. And, like a typical troll, you are attempting to hijack the discussion from the actual thrust of the article. By the way, in case you were about to dispute that this is about basic logic, most high school introduction to logic math classes and some of the easier portions of standardized tests like the SAT contain items like the below: A statement is a lie. If the statement was a lie then it must have been uttered by a Republican. Assuming this is correct than which of the following is the best answer A. All statements uttered by Republicans are always lies B. If a statement was the truth, then it could never have been uttered by a Republican C. Non Republicans always tell the truth D. None of the above can be inferred from the passage The answer is D Anyone who has taken an IQ test or the SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT or other typical standardized tests will recognize this question AND the correct answer. And you think I should be embarrassed? That is funny. Sorry, I'm just not aiming at your kind of reader.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:03:05 PM

  (0+)

You got your own "logic problem" wrong. Look up what a contrapositive is and you'll see that answer C is actually correct. So by your own reasoning you must have never taken any sort of standardized test, because everyone who has should have gotten that right. Riiiight. I'm always a fan of the liberal "logic".

by Patrick Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:09:46 PM

  (0+)

Yes, C is the contrapositive, but the contrapositive is not proven by what we are given as the statement. I'll give you points for being a rare Republican that actually looks something up in the attempt to win an argument, but you didnt really understand what you read or you would know that a contrapositive has to be proven in logic in order for it to be "true". A contrapositive is not automatically a true statement.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 2:12:46 PM

  (0+)

I don't know what you are talking about, but a contrapositive is always true (assuming that the original statement is true). "Recreations in the Theory of Numbers" by Albert Beiler, on page 45 of the second edition reads: "In logic, there is a term called an 'implication': 'if p, then q.' ... Finally there is the 'contrapositive': 'if not q, then not p.' This is ALWAYS true." If you do not have this book, perhaps click here the first link on contrapositive via Google will change your mind: "An important fact to remember about the contrapositive, is that it always has the SAME truth value as the original conditional statement." Or http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Contrapostive.html: "An implication and its contrapositive are equivalent statements. When proving a theorem, it is often more convenient or more intuitive to prove the contrapositive instead." Now that we have that settled, lets look at your logic argument: "If the statement was a lie then it must have been uttered by a Republican." Refining this to a raw implication of the form "if p then q", we obtain "if 'lie' then 'uttered by a Republican'". The the contrapositive is "if 'not uttered by a Republican' then 'not lie'". Thus "non-Republicans always tell the truth" is the contrapositive and the correct answer. So yes, you did get it wrong. And yes I do know how to look things up to "win an argument". But no I didn't understand things wrong. It'd be pretty tough to get a degree in discrete mathematics without knowing what a contrapositive is.

by Patrick Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 9:56:09 PM

  (0+)

Since the inference is a "some" it is as an (I)proposition as shown in this explanation in wikipedia---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapositive

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 4:00:52 PM

  (0+)

Exactly my point to begin with.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:24:30 PM

  (0+)

Mr. T: Have you read the Bill of Rights lately? Better go over it again. We have not only a Right, but a Responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. We, The People. We are America. The Bush Adminstration is not America, and it has misrepresent us. It's time we do something about it!

by fahrender (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 4:17:47 PM

  (0+)

You say 'we' have been misrepresented. Last time I checked, elections were based on the majority. Majority rules. Sure, protect minorities, but ultimately the reason our country is headed in this direction is because WE the CITIZENS chose Bush as a leader. Nobody is perfect. Sure, maybe he made a few mistakes, and that is where I agree with you. But to say we have been misrepresented is not correct. Bush doesn't seem to represent the Democratic party interests very well, duh. He's a Republican. What did you expect, honestly?

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:06:28 PM

  (0+)

...as Al Gore said during his campaign, that the President of the United States is the one politician with the responsibility to represent ALL of the people. As Clinton did when he vastly reduced the amount of welfare recipients, and put NAFTA in place and said abortion should be Safe, Legal and RARE. Note the emphasis on RARE, which he didnt have to say, had nothing to do with support from the Democratic Base and was an obvious bone to the conservative electorate. Given time, I am sure I could come up with additional examples, those were just off of the top of my head.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:28:37 AM

  (0+)

and al gore is expected (of course) to be the expert on the presidency. I'm not saying bush is, i'm just saying your basis is from al gore. not too stable, if you ask me. but thats just me.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 6:42:04 PM

  (0+)

Bush? That's riotously funny. You? Who argues about the meaning of what I write yet cannot follow basic logic? No wonder you are throwing such a fuss over this article. Brainless Bush is your kind of guy.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:06:00 PM

  (0+)

i specifically said not bush. read it again.

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:26:13 PM

  (0+)

You sound like a child. Did too! Did not! Did too! Did not! As for misrepresented, click here but 60% say yes, your 32% is not majority, and 8% are brain dead.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.

They have seized on an affidavit Curtis wrote Dec. 6 about his allegations of vote fraud. The affidavit was initially published the same day on bradblog.com. On March 3, Curtis passed a lie detector test given by Tim Robinson, retired chief polygraph operator for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

by Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 1:27:18 AM

  (0+)

Because of numerous factors, it is highly unlikely that this motion will go anywhere. Still, the idea is a creative one and now, some of the verbiage has been created. Maybe another state legislature will pick it up too. Just having the legislation introduced in multiple states would be a step forward. Rob Kall, editor, OpEdNews

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 23, 2006 at 9:30:12 PM

  (0+)

Hmmm... finally, politicians with great big brass ones willing to do the right thing. Makes me want to move to Illinois... I did read MrT's comments with great amusement! Classic hallmark of COIntelPro job of "If you can't kill it, divert everyones attention into meaningless diatribes". Thanks for the laugh MrT! I read an interesting article about a book entitled "Political Pathocracy: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes". Very well researched and a fascinating read. It is from the same website that created the Pentagon Video. Have a look, click here It certainly describes what is going on in Washington today.

by stevef (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 8:38:35 AM

  (0+)

I'm of the firm opinion that the republicans are just as justified in their indignant anger over this, as I was when they came from both parties after Clinton when he lied about a blow job. Although, I think I was probably a little more furious...nay, livid, to learn that bush admitted to wrong doing on national television, and no one from either party stepped up. We are all entitled to our opinions, but people such as MrT here, really should form an objective opinion before defending someone. I wouldn't want to defend a guilty man. Please before ranting and raving about what you think is going on, do a little research into it, and form an objective opinion, not a subjective one. You have the right to your opinions, and the right to state them, that's never in question. It's all summed up nicely in: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.". So please, to all americans, lets not get defensive, lets not get hostile, it's pointless. Let us instead come together as one nation united and review the information presented and each of us form a well-rounded, well-informed objective opinion based on fact, and not fantasy.

by Fuzzy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:35:22 AM

  (0+)

agreed

by BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:40:46 AM

  (0+)

You guys are nuts, do you really want Cheney to be in charge when Bush is gone?

by Dacer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 2:12:15 PM

  (0+)

I want Cheney right where I can see him. Don't pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Toto look what you have done. You have pulled back the curtain and removed the puppetmaster's pet goat. Now he is in the spotlight and everyone can see his "true character."

by Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:21:32 AM

  (0+)

include Cheney in their request for impeachment.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 5:42:59 PM

  (0+)

MrT is yet another garden-variety fascist who has betrayed the conservative heritage of the Republican party in favor of the fuhrerprinzip. I wonder what his fellow Republican blackshirts and brownshirts will say when their "great leaders" are standing in the dock facing criminal charges?

by Boston Tea Party (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 7:32:06 PM

  (0+)

"How quickly the public forget". That is the most truthful statement you will ever read. Who out there in la-la land can tell me how Bill Clinton escaped his Impeachment? Answer: Nobody! Reason: You were not there...George Bush was, and he knows the secret why no U.S. President will ever be Impeached ever again, so he can do what he likes. So too can the police, and they now know it as well! However, when you learn what George Bush learned at Clinton's Congressional Hearing, you too will be free. Bush can in no way be Impeached by anybody, so get over it unless you're prepared to personally punch his lights out!

by Bluey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:12:49 PM

  (0+)

I must admit that your comment baffles me, how is it that discussing the actions of George Bush be a WASTE OF ENERGY? We have a right and obligation to speak out when we are being mistreated. I would like for you to expand on this, please, amuse me.

by takingbacksundae152 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 3:24:51 PM

  (0+)

Your statement own baseless and does not make sense. Can you please clarify and give examples? You will notice that I ask questions and provide evidence to back up my claims. You do nothing to further finding the truth by leveling such vitriolic divisive claims. ...You stated, "This article describes the latest thought process in a Democratic party totally devoid of any sense of reality." Why do you say the Democrats are devoid any sense of reality? What is the reality we are missing? Why are 65% of Americans suffering from the same hallucination? One thing I know for sure is that click here children had nothing to do with 9-11. Innocent women and children maimed and in pain. This is the reality I see. So why don't you go home, turn on your TV, and wrap yourself in the American flag. ...You stated, "The DNC and its fellow travellers relentlessly rehash baseless allegations and repeat their attacks in their effort to undermine America and its ability to defend democracy and the U.S. in particular." How do you know the allegations being considered by the IL legislature is baseless? Who has looked at the evidence? This is what they want to investigate. click here is an investigation into charges to determine if enough evidence warrants an indictment. Only after click here full investigation (See Impeachment) is complete and an indictment [Articles of Impeachment] are drawn, does the impeachment move to the Senate for trial ...You stated, "Their aim is a castrated America reduced to the loweest common denominator and embracing the socialist nightmare." What does this sentence mean? I can't really picture what lowest common denominator you are talking about. What is a socialist? Is a social person opposite of an anti-socialist? Are you really saying you are anti-social? ...You stated, "The democrats are "our insurgents" making war on our country and its people. Patriots? They are traitors who will be crushed under the heels of real patriotic Americans." click here traitors ----- http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html>Gen. Anthoney Zinni, Aug. 23, 2002 Now that we want to do it, it's the wrong time. He'll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic feelings from the West (among people who) misinterpret the attack. We could end up with collateral damage. You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it -- if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion.

by Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:13:08 AM

  (0+)

Are u trying to make the country laugh. Did you get a good tax return or something. Do you fill your Hummer with gas? Have u read the charges or are you watching Fox news. You are a nazi. end of story. watch the regime fall...

by musikgod (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:26:10 AM

  (0+)

Impeach Bush yourself! That's right. This is much more than just a petition. There's a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process. That's where we come in. One of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF. You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at the above address. If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/ If you're concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy at this point, read the bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ It just takes a minute to save our democracy.

by Jodin (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 7:51:52 AM

  (0+)