Posted on 08/24/2003 12:57:18 AM PDT by cousinkoala
Just how bad were theliberals in the sixties ? Worse than any could have imagined .
Former liberal turned Reagan Conservative , writer Author David Horowitz grew up in the sixties as a radical liberal activist and friend of radical Democrat Tom Hayden , future Demacrat Senator , 1996 Los Angeles Mayoral candidate against Richard Riordan , and husband of Jane Fonda .
As a friend of Mr . Hayden during the anti - Vietnam war era , David Horowitz reaveals in his book 'Radical Son ' that Tom Hayden actively ,literally , and personally trained the VietCong how to conduct Psychological warfare against our own U.S. troops in Vietnam . Had war been declared by Congress , Tom Hayden would have been tried for treason .
So how is it that Mr. Hayden could run for Los Angeles Mayor in 1996 and this not be revealed during the mayoral campaign ? This is anyone's guess .
So what is the point of this short but revealing expose' on Radical Democrat California Senator Tom Hayden , former husband of Jane Fonda ? For those who love America , be ever vigilant , and know your enemy . Do not be naive . These Psuedo-Americans ( friends of our enemies ) are out there now waging psychological warfare in election campaigns and off years , and they have not changed their stripes , as we have seen from Congressman Democrat Dick Gephardt's attack on President Bush and our men in uniform in Iraq . Thier constant carping and caterwalling against all good things Republican reveal themselves as nothing more than immature children in adult bodies who never learned to grow up out of the ME generation of the sixties . Thier mentors are such people as brain damaging drug use promoters such as David Crosby of Crosby Stills , Nash , and Young rock ' n ' Roll fame who was qouted on a ' rockumentary ' saying , " We wanted to take the people out of the fifties ..." in thier promotion of thier music and drug use .
David Crosby in recent times had been looking for a liver donor . You see , thel ost and fallen man destroyed his liver with alchoholism . Maybe this would not have happened had he left the 50's alone .
Remember the difference between a liberal and a Conservative . A liberal is an ideologue who believes in attaining his goal through any means ( 'any means to an end ') : lying , cheating , racebaiting , classwarfare , and the transfer of wealth These are typixcal Socialist - communist methods . A Conservative is one who wishes to work , achieve , worship God , and be with his friends .
Dear friends , be ever vigilant and courageous .
Love , cousinkoala
As a disgruntled conservative, #41 had it coming. "Read my lips: I WILL SELL YOU OUT!"
Then you are part of the problem. That flawed rationale led, in part, to 8 scandal-filled years of the Clintons — so far — and they're not through with us yet, thanks to disgruntled people like you. Disgruntled people don't think straight. So, don't blame your mistakes on Bush or on anybody else.
Reason enough to avoid military conflicts unless we first declare war.
Wrong. He did nothing at anytime that justified 8 years of the Clintons. You can't explain that away. That's the way it is. Keep trying.
Sure. More blame. Blame it on the men and women who voted in Senate and House Majorities for the Republicans in 1994, 96, 98, and 2000. Right. It's the voter's fault that the Senate choked when impeachment was in their hands. We vote the majorities, our elected leaders waffle on impeachment and go-along to get-along on spending measures to "steal" issues from the Democrats. When you're ready to move on to the real battles of Conservative vs. Liberal and quit the kiddie game of "R" vs. "D," let me know.
...and the people voted for somebody else.
The people screwed up, just like I've been saying. What don't you understand about that?
You haven't proven that the people made a mistake. It doesn't follow, for example, that voting for Perot means Bush will lose, or that Clinton will win. (Voting for the candidate of your choice is not a "mistake.") Bush must have done something wrong to lose a job approval of 90+% during the Gulf War. Gee, what mistake could HE have made?
If you think voting for Perot = 8 years of Clinton, then you can use the same twisted logic to say that the voters put an end to 8 years of mistakes under Bush by cutting him of at 4. But you'd rather hold Bush blameless.
Ironically, you echo Peter Jennings during the Congressional races of '94. He said America threw a "temper tantrum" when they threw the bums out. You say much the same thing when you say voters "made a mistake" in 92. Only this time, your man lost. Regardless of party affiliation, it's part of the same mindset: The electorate must not have the same annointed vision that you think you have. Bull. '92 was for Bush to lose-- and he found a way to do it.
Nice dodge on '96 and and the impeachment vote, BTW.
Who was your man?
You haven't proven that the people made a mistake.
Electing Liberals/Socialists is a mistake, anytime and everytime until proven otherwise. You already know that.
Regardless of party affiliation, it's part of the same mindset...
It's all about party affiliation and the mindset was flawed but there are still many who refuse that face that fact and there is a possibility that the same mistake will be made in 2004.
'92 was for Bush to lose-- and he found a way to do it.
There you go again. The people and the country lost when the voters put Clinton in office.
Nice dodge on '96 and and the impeachment vote, BTW.
What did the impeachment have to do with the electorate? The people had no vote in that. The mistake of '92 led to the mistake of '96. Very costly mistakes.
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.