Zell Miller is now in the piece of crap hall of fame & should make DU's #1 idiot next week for this....
He's going to speak at the RNC....Why doesn't he just switch to a Republican....What an a-hole....
Oh, & he also took out a full page ad the other day in USA Today (sports section) blasting liberals!
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 1:09:51 PM
Party of inclusion? Guess again!
Everyones included until you disagree with the socialists platform of the party.
please see Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh & others who are way right of center....I could site examples, but really no need to....
Come on Bribite, liberals don't hate, we never judge, & we always respect differences of opinion, just like Alan Colmes, LOL....
This Zell Miller thing is just very confusing....He's a democrat, yet he's CONSTANTLY dumping on his own party.....Imagine how conservatives would react if Tom DeLay showed up at a Free Speech Coalition meeting & voiced strong support for the adult film industry!.....Then, he took out an entire page ad in the Christian Science Monitor proclaiming that Americans have a right to watch porn....Well, if that happened conservatives would be shaking their head, much as the way liberals are after Zell Miller's actions.....
If this isn't hate speech, you must be into S & M!
Actually, I got the "piece of crap club" rhetoric from the Jim Rome show, where he uses that phrase often.....No one to my knowledge ever accused him of hate speech with that phrase!....
And do you honestly think: "Zell being #1 on DU list next week is hate speech?"....If that is hate speech, then please tell me how you would classify the rants of Ann Coulter?.....I would love to hear that....
And no, I don't like S&M at all....Don't have any desire to pay to be humilated...Being suspended upside down with a mask on, while a giant spider crawls around nearby while some girl is laughing just doesn't cut it....
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 8:27:38 AM
I appologize to the ladies that read on this board, but what a bitch that woman is. I have watched her speak on television and am embarrassed that a person can spew out such hostile speech against those that she disagrees with. All the while, the logic of her own positions is often suspect (not that their basis is not right, but her logic in building on that basis is often shit).
Safe to say she has some anger management issues to address:
Coulter on the New York Times
I am prepared - just this once - to name a traitor: Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times. 9/18/03
This from a paper that has become America's leading spokesman for the deposed Baathist regime in Iraq. 8/28/03
Coulter on Higher Learning
The nation's colleges and universities have become a Safe Streets program for traitors and lunatics. 6/11/03
Coulter on the Democratic Party
After last week's drubbing in the midterm elections, the Abortion Party (formerly known as the Democratic Party) is looking for direction. 11/14/02
Now that the Bush tax cuts have already started to kick in and boost the economy, it was beginning to look as if the Treason Lobby would have nothing to run on. 11/20/03
The Democratic Party has got to go away. 1/14/03
Coulter on Liberals
The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists. 8/28/03
The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. 6/26/03
Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. 5/29/03
Coulter on Bill Clinton
Clinton also lied every time he said "God bless America," though he doesn't believe in God or America... 7/24/03
Coulter Bill Clinton's Fat Oleaginous Face
When Clinton first showed his fat oleaginous mug to the nation... 6/26/03
Coulter on Traitors
And liberals will continue unabashedly invoking a lie in order to shield their ongoing traitorous behavior. 6/26/03
...Conservatives have not yet persuaded liberals to give up on socialism and treason... 3/13/03
Coulter on Religion
Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed.") 3/4/04
The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God. 1/8/04
Coulter on Muslims
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. 9/14/01
Muslims feel humiliated now? We'll show them humiliated. 6/7/02
Coulter on Muslims and Liberals
Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim, "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time. 11/28/02
Coulter on Muslims, the French, and Liberals Who Love Them Both
Liberals have finally found a people even more worthy of their admiration than the adulterous French: synagogue-burning, genital-mutilating, terrorist-cheering Muslims. 5/3/02
Coulter on Feminism, Liberals, and Silverware
Liberals persist in thinking about feminism and "women's issues" as if they have something to do with women's interests, rather than the exclusive and rather sigle-minded obsession with sticking forks in babies heads. 8/17/00
Coulter on the Democrats, Terrorists, and Non-Sequiturs
Instead of longing to crush and humiliate the enemy, they believe true patriotism consists of redoubled efforts to expand the welfare state. 6/7/02
Coulter on the Spanish
Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. 3/18/04
Coulter on the Mexicans and the Fine Individuals Who Protect Our Borders
Angry primitives are relentlessly staging raids on our border, which is defended by a hapless bunch of incompetents at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1/16/03
Coulter on Compassion and Howard Dean's Brother
.Charlie Dean went to Indochina in 1974 to witness the ravages of the war he had opposed. Not long after he arrived, the apparently ungrateful communists captured and killed him. Hey fellas! I'm on your s-- CLUNK! 11/20/03
Coulter on Hateful Ideas
Liberals always hate freedom and want to jam their hateful ideas down the entire nation's throat. 10/16/00
I bet she'd be a wild bitch in bed!
I can see myself taking her up the ass, me spankin' her while she screams for more.
Take this you bitch!!! And then I pull out of her ass and I come all over her face...........
I'm gonna go rest now.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 11:51:10 AM
-- Modified on 6/29/2004 7:14:03 PM
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 9:28:58 AM
*modified to correct a wrong reference to George McGovern, the politician should have instead been Walter Mondale*
A politician should work to change the direction of his party from within if that politician has belief in that party. Anyone who attends the convention of the opposing party and attacks their party publicly should change parties and declare their full allegiance to their new party.
Approximately one and one half decade ago, after a leftward leaning democratic party had nominated Walter Mondale and had gotten pancaked in the November elections, a group of moderates from that party set out to quietly change the course of their party. They did not publish hostile proclamations against it or speak at the convention of the opposing party. They patiently and successfully challenged the thinking the had caused their party to veer so far to the left. They successfully convinced their leftward brethren that a centrist policy position was the best course for their party and the country. Their efforts would lead directly to the election of William Jefferson Clinton as president (Clinton, whether religiously or not, was a member of the centrist alliance).
To make a long story short, those who are upset by Zell Miller's actions have a right to be upset. His actions are not the actions of a person who seeks to rebuild his party in the direction that he feels is right for it.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 10:14:05 AM
Miller is a Democrat in name only. He doesn't seem to believe in anything the Democratic party stands for anymore. If he had any honor, he'd just become an independent for the remainder of his term. It's one thing to disagree with the direction of your party but quite another to endorse the opponent party's candidate and participate in his re-election.
I onlY did it becasue every else was doing it!!!
IF THAT IS HOW YOU SET YOUR MORAL COMPASS.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 9:58:40 AM
Work has been busy and I'm just getting back to this board (to the dismay of some). What was said that I should denounce?
no longer claim ignorance.
but I can tell you I don't agree with some of that stuff.
My .02, Israel is the BEST ally we have in that region. Their interests and ours I believe are very closely tied and I believe that we should support them. Yes we are hated in the Middle East for this very reason, but it is the job of our leaders (which WE ELECT) to set policy. The real courage comes in doing what is right, NOT what makes you popular.
but I can tell you I don't agree with some of that stuff.
My .02, Israel is the BEST ally we have in that region. Their interests and ours I believe are very closely tied and I believe that we should support them. Yes we are hated in the Middle East for this very reason, but it is the job of our leaders (which WE ELECT) to set policy. The real courage comes in doing what is right, NOT what makes you popular
Snowman, first I would like to thank you for being above the name calling and other mean spirited comments that posters apply when they don't agree with me. While you may not have agreed, thank you for being civil about it.
I wanted to comment on a few of your points;
"My .02, Israel is the BEST ally we have in that region"
There is a saying; "when people say that Israel is our only friend in the region, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies".
I know your not saying they are our only friend, just that there our best ally in the region.
"Their interests and ours I believe are very closely tied"
That is the problem. The only reason America's interests are tied to Israel's interests is because our government is filled with people of the same ethnic-relgious background as Israel. Over 50% of the federal government is comprised of these peoples. So it would make sense that they would share Israel's interests and even make policy that favors Israel, even go to war for Israel.
What I really have a problem with is that these people who are so actively involved with our policy making and enforcement-that make up over 50% of the federal government-only makeup two and a half percent of the American population. This very small minority has accrued to much power.
Thismall minority are responsible for ruining America's good reputation around the world. For increasing our odds of seeing more terrorism in this country.
They are responsible for continuing to provide aid for a country who claims to be our ally yet went ahead against our wishes and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system.
Some ally ISrael is.
Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?
You say "Our government is comprised". I don't really care how many jews, christians, islamics, whites, blacks, chinese or any other factor serve. the key is, WE ELECT THEM.
Also, the last time I checked, Israel was not calling on Jihad against American forces. Yes, Israel has done some things in the past that which I am not fond of, as have most of our allies. At the same time, we have called on them to show restraint for acts performed against them that we would never restain ourselves on.
One other point, you say that before Israel we had no enemies. I do not believe in rewarding terrorist by letting them influence our foreign policy. Let Spain be the gutless wonder that it is. If you have a problem with who we back, open a dialog, if your dialog does not produce results, so be it. But if you want to take it to the next level and start violence, we should repay 10 fold...
You say "Our government is comprised". I don't really care how many jews, christians, islamics, whites, blacks, chinese or any other factor serve. the key is, WE ELECT THEM.
I agree to a point, however we dont elect all the people appointed to their staffs that are propelling us toward war in the middle east.
"Also, the last time I checked, Israel was not calling on Jihad against American forces. Yes, Israel has done some things in the past that which I am not fond of, as have most of our allies. At the same time, we have called on them to show restraint for acts performed against them that we would never restain ourselves on."
The American Forces are looked apon as invaders.
"One other point, you say that before Israel we had no enemies. I do not believe in rewarding terrorist by letting them influence our foreign policy. Let Spain be the gutless wonder that it is. If you have a problem with who we back, open a dialog, if your dialog does not produce results, so be it. But if you want to take it to the next level and start violence, we should repay 10 fold..."
I agree 100%. You don't reward terrorists by letting them influence foreign policy. I feel the terrorists have tried dialog, sadly we in America receive our news from the people who support Israel. So we get news designed to create sympathy for Israel,instead of the truth, which is Israel continues to steal more of there land.
I want to say that 9/11 was caused by our support of the Saudi Government, not Israels.
Maybe you will take the high road, as any civilized person would do. The silence of James86 and GOPGeezer, is deafening.
If you disagee, let me know what I am missing....
And don't give me any of that "don't agree with some of it" crap. HOW can a civilized person agree with ANY of it? Your post is simply an attempt at skillful ducking.
I am still awaiting replies from James86, GOPGeezer and, I forgot them in my last post, Beachbound and JBIRDCA. Maybe they are away from the board, or maybe they are simply lurking to avoid answering the question that I have posed.
At least Bribite and Snafu had the balls to respond in a definitive manner, even if they did not agree with me insisting that they make their positions clear pro or con Funtime69's position.
-- Modified on 6/27/2004 1:31:08 PM
-- Modified on 6/27/2004 1:33:08 PM
Funtime69, I believe sdstud and stilltryin25 want to know if you are Anti-Semitic
Suddenly, my opinion which they have both bashed in the past is now highly valued by them (don't know why, I'm still voting GWB).
Please post your response here or on an new thread and start a dialog on this!! Since everyone seems to be waiting with baited breath on what I think, I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
Thanks...
I questioned you to see whether you countenanced his views. You finally had the courage to step to the plate and give an definitive answer to my questions for YOU.
I do not need to see a post by Funtime69 anytime soon mostly because all of the ones that I have seen have been dripping with hatred.
By the way, I am a political moderate. I do not think that I have said anywhere who I will vote for, mostly because I have not made a decision on that yet. Don't try to put words in my mouth to cover for your own inadequacies.
I still await answers from James86, JBIRDCA, Beachbound, and GOPGeezer. Oh guys, where are you?
Sorry to upset you, but I do not live for this board. If it takes me a while to respond to something, it is because this board is entertainment for me and therefore pretty low on my priority list (sorry to offend anyone, by I hope no one is out there spinning their day away awaiting the next post from someone)!
As far as politics, I am not as hard right as you may think I am.
I am more of a Libertarian type (that party just can't get their act together).
As far as putting words in your mouth, not my intention, once again, I have better things to do with my time.
He is dumping on his own party because he's smart to realize that after Clinton the party moved way too much to the left. As a moderate Republican I would be happy to see Bush gone but Kerry has no chance to win, he is too much of a lefty. Miller is doing the Dem. party a favour by trying to bring it back to it roots the center, that same center platform which allowed Keenedy and Clinton to win. Considering that the first time I was allowed to vote was in 1980, Clinton was the first Democratic President I casted my vote for twice.
and, he's been in lock step with the Republicans on every major issue of the past decade. I have no problem with Miller speaking at the Convention of the party he TRULY belongs to (certainly, he has sold out to them, without a doubt). I simply feel that he's lying if he claims to be in the Democratic Party.
Where do you get this tripe? Sadly, I know you actually believe your own fantasy.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 9:59:24 AM
It was one of the most polarizing speeches of the 1960s. Miller has had to repudiate his own speech on this issue numerous times in subsequent elections (making him a worse flip-flopper than Kerry has ever been). It was, in fact, one of the more infamous moments of the Dixiecrat resistance, along with George Wallace blocking the entrance to the University of Alabama, and Lester Maddox's "segregation now, segregation forever" speech.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 4:57:27 PM
are you not calling for the resignation of Robert "KKK" Byrd. At least Miller was never a member of the klan. Oh, but Byrd is a loyal democrat so that is o.k.
WEAK, VERY WEAK!!
First of all, I make no claim to being a Democrat, I am merely supporting the current Democratic candidate for President, because he is far better than the Republican choice. I'm a Libertarian, who decides whom to support based on their individual qualifications. Second, both Zell Miller and Robert Byrd are in office at the behest of voters in their respective states, a not insignificant portion of whom hold some racist or bigoted views. And in a Democracy, racist and bigoted views are entitled to representation if they can garner significant support, even though I personally despise them.
I do not begrudge Zell Miller his right to hold his position, as he obviously IS supported by his constituency. I simply begrudge him the right to claim to represent one party, when in fact, he represents the opposing party, as proven by his actions.
Granted you are not a democrat, so please understand when I say you I tend to refer to the left (may not apply properly to you personally).
Anyways, I hear all of these democrats screaming about Zell Miller, but they had no problems with Jumpin' Jim Jeffords (sp?) changing shortly after the election and handing control of the Senate to the Democrats (of couse Daschle is so disconnected from the people he let that slip out of his hands 1 1/2 years later)
BTW, Zell's take on it is he loves the Democratic Party, but it has gone too far to the left and he wants to bring it back to the center. He says he can only do that by staying a Democrat...
-- Modified on 6/29/2004 7:28:39 PM
The Democrats backed him earler with both support and money!
And you guys say GWB is stupid 
And it's a mistake that they made again with Clinton. Of course, now the Republicans are doing the same in supporting Miller's craven views.
Well, they backed Clinton to the hilt while he was doing interns in the White House. Backing low characters seems to be their MO...
As for me, I supported Clinton in his first term, and Dole the next time, after Clinton had proven to me who and what he was all about.
What's your point? I ALWAYS support the candidate whom I believe to represent the best combination of character and integrity as well as his policy positions. And Bush is a zero on both. Last election, I supported McCain, and only voted for Gore based on his being minimally less noxious to me than was Bush.
You seem to think that I am some fanatic Democrat. I'm not, I'm a Libertarian. In fact, I am merely an extremist in my disgust for Bush. I will come right out and say that Reagan was the most effective President of the past 40 years, even though I was not enamored with his views on many issues. But, unlike Bush, who would like to claim Reagan's mantle, REAGAN was ALWAYS doing what he thought was best for THIS nation. Bush, OTOH, is clearly in the pocket of Saudi Arabia, and has more concern for the views of his Saudi friends, than for the health and safety of our young troops, whom he put in harms way on an issue that has and had NOTHING to do with OUR national security, and gotten nearly 900 of them killed, and several thousand of them maimed in the process.
but I bet he can tell the meaning of the word "IS"