I juth love Ron Popeil! Ith ith true! Why? Because he invented GLH silly! I juth thpray it on my head and I have hair!
Posted on 05/12/2005 8:30:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Manuel Varela wrote: To: antiwarbroward@yahoogroups.com From: Manuel Varela Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:37:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [antiwarbroward] RE: Open Letter to Howard Dean from Kucinich
No, I am not kidding at all!!
Lets Wait. We´ll see very soon indeed!!
Fortunately enough this will be the end for both parties. I am a firm believer that a new party o political movement (progressive and libertarian at the same time) is about to emerge.
There are so many underlying forces for this to happen in America. Most of this forces concentrated around John Kerry until Nov 2004 because he seemed to represent a departure from the old left vs. wright paradigm.
Freedom and Participatory Democracy were the "secret weapons" talked about in the small circles until May 2004 when it already became clear DP was completely unable to confront the Ruling Elite and the special interests that support the current regime. Manuel
Rita Pickering wrote: Are you kidding?
----- Original Message ----- From: Manuel Varela To: antiwarbroward@yahoogroups.com Sent: 5/4/2005 8:35:20 PM Subject: [antiwarbroward] Re: Open Letter to Howard Dean from Kucinich
The greatest catastrophe for the Democratic Party and maybe for the whole world was not the Nov 2004 outcome with the rigged and hacked elections. It was the take over of the party by Jimmy Carter. Howard Dean is just a poppet of the latter.
Remember the anti war rethoric of Jimmy Carter before november?? There is a strategy carefully designed to implement a stalinist fascist regime in the US. Even worst than GWB´s
Rita Pickering wrote:
An Open Letter to Howard Dean
Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?
Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.
Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.
Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.
There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long
That's the simple truth. While Clinton governed as a centrist Democrat, Carter was the far left liberal Democrat. So the libs have nothing to complain about since they had their "day in the sun".
You guys seem to be suggesting that libertarianism = legalized pot. That is slightly odd, since in so many places, for all practical purposes, pot is "legal." That battle has been "won."
I juth love Ron Popeil! Ith ith true! Why? Because he invented GLH silly! I juth thpray it on my head and I have hair!
Give that man a cookie...Amazingly you broke my code and figured out that libertarians want to Legalize It!!.
Izzat right?
Well, here's just a little friendly challenge to ya.
Come on down to good ole Fort Payne, Alambammer and stroll down the avenue with a big ole doobie in your hand, say, about noon on a Friday afternoon.
See if you win that battle!
Or, you could go to a more "enlightened" location, say, the parking lot of the local Wal-mart in beautiful downtown Copperas Cove, Taxes and fire up a bowl, and by the way, leave the baggie sticking out of your pocket and then I want you to tell me how "legal" ya are when the local gendarmes swoop down upon you.
Yeah, for all practical purposes, that battle ain't been won, unless it's in the likes of a cesspool like San Fransissico or that liberal bastion, Seattle, Oregon.
Try doing it in your own home, with the curtains closed. Just a suggestion. Or buy a farm, or a cabin the woods.
Jimmy Carter isn't that smart!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE! :^)
Dean, Carter, Perloser, Kerry, Lard Ass, Hitlery...yeah, the Dems are in great shape...LOL!
Sorry, Mr. Popeil....
Very nice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.