It is my belief that the large majority of voting democrats have little to no idea what the radical wing of the party really stands for. The party that for so many years has rallied their voters based on fear and lies continues to do so while the masses sleep.
MoveOn.org, an organization that is unable to live up to its own name as they are still living in the crushing Presidential election of 2000, is running a contest. They are asking people to develop campaign ads to promote democrat candidates. One submission they received was a spot that compared George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler, by superimposing Hitler's speaking over Bush's photos.
Hard to believe? Not in modern day America, where the liberal media is force feeding enough anti-Bush propoganda to brainwash the Oprah-loving, Dr. Phil-worshipping masses. View the video for yourself and be aghast at what is really taking place in the minds of these dangerous extremists.
It's Del.icio.us!
Furl It!
January 18, 2004 03:28 AM
nd not snowballed by a bunch of bull. Who are you?
February 5, 2004 02:00 AM
Bush is definately a facist, but that dosen't make him a Hitler.
Democrats are anything but radical. They didn't even have enough collective gnads to stand up to Bush's appointment or his heinous war.
The most dangeous extremists are currently occuping the White House doing everything they can to run our country into the crapper.
February 5, 2004 10:34 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the poster boy for MTV and public education. This guy doesn't even know what fascist means, but throws the term around like some kid smoking pot on a college campus.
Fascist - A reactionary or dictatorial person.
Bush hardly qualifies as fascist. YOU however, are being quite reactionary. Take a look in the mirror.
And I can see where you are troubled. How dare we remove a dictator who threatened us with WMD (whether he had them or not), murdered thousands of his own people, and terrorized his entire country.
You would have let the Jews bake in Hitler's ovens. Shame on you.
February 7, 2004 03:33 AM
Yeah, that's exactly the response I expect from a neo-conservative. All insult no meat.
You're all right, I'm all wrong, so I should shut-up, sit down and eat my veggie burger... yeah... yeah... yeah... If I wanted that kind of debate, I could go watch FOX.
The original reason for going into Iraq was for WMD's which obviously don't exsist. This stuff about liberating an oppressed people from an evil dictator was an after thought.
The US never gave a thought to Saddam's human rights violations until he fell out of line with US interests.Until then he was one of our many friendly dictators.
The world has plenty of dictators and human rights violators to go around. If indeed our reason for being in Iraq is to free an oppressed people and spread democracy than it seems there is a long list of country's to invade. Gee, maybe Saudi Arabia should be next. You know, one of our closest allies who just happens to be a heinous human rights violating nation.
On that note how many of these "rogue" nations can we afford to invade and occupy in the name of of freedom and democracy, before the world decides we're the oppressive dictators, we're the human rights violators before they attack the US pre-emptively. North Korea has already publicly reserved the right.
How dare you say I would allow Hitler's atrocities. I'm actually floored that you could say something so despicable. My whole arguement stems from my utter disgust with the dictators and facists responsible for these heinous crimes.
The shame is yours.
By the way, next time you go to dictionary.com to look up a word like facist make sure you look up reactionary as well.
February 7, 2004 08:21 AM
Sigh, get the fact-checker please.
The intelligence report indicated that Saddam had WMD. This is the same intelligence that Clinton was getting. Even posterboy Clinton thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam himself did not deny and led us to believe he had WMD. The mad dictator WAS a WMD. And the search is still not over, by the way.
Your whole argument is preposterous and void of reason. Thats why there is no point arguing with a radical liberal. Your hate for the President will drive you to any lenghths to get him out of office.
February 23, 2004 10:41 PM
Why would Clinton say that? I thought he was a posterboy. Why would our "posterboy" advocate this war, unless he wasn't our posterboy.
And if he said Saddam had WMD, it would suggest that both parties are run by liars. And that's impossible, because...because...because it is. That's why.
May 9, 2008 12:19 AM
I believe that bush is a fascist but who says thats bad. Obama is a radical democrat, which will even out bushes views. just because a country become sort of a fascist state for eight years does not mean every one is fascist.
November 6, 2008 04:07 PM
If you want to talk about fascist look at obama he is the most radical liberal of all time. He may be the president elect, but I will never see him as our president. For all of you that voted for him you are going to see what he is all about!