Zel Miller silenced by the DNC

[Mulholland]

"Somewhere David Copperfield must be turning green with envy. This is the biggest illusion I've ever seen. What a sham this turned out to be!

John Kerry voted against every weapons system we needed to win the cold war. We would still be in the cold war if it were up to John Kerry. The Berlin Wall would still be up.

I'm a Democrat. I went to my first Convention back in 1972. I'm a Scoop Jackson Democrat. This Democrat party today has drifted far far to the left.

They have become completely beholden to these far left special interest groups. What are the Democrats doing right? Very little.

The Democrat party has been the party of Kerry, Edwards, and Daschle. Its so far left that its off the charts. When you look at the complete vote of John Kerry for the last 20 years.

He voted against every one of the weapons systems that we used to win the cold war. When he was on the intelligence committee. They had 49 public meetings, and he missed 38 of them!

The Republican party has become the party of hope, responsibility, and opportunity. Look at the Democrat primary that when on in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happened to politics stopping at the waters edge?"

Zel Miller from Hannity and Colmes

[speeder]

Why doesn't this traitorous POS just make it official and join the GOP??

(Trying to speak Mul-bonics).

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by speeder
Why doesn't this traitorous POS just make it official and join the GOP??

(Trying to speak Mul-bonics).

The backwards world of the liberal mind...Where the traitors become the patriots and the patriots become the traitors.

[speeder]

Nothing backwards about it, he is a traitor to the Democratic party only. As far as anyone being a traitor to their country, you accuse people who have worn the uniform and risked their lives for the U.S., then spent the remaining years in public service as "traitors". You are seriously off-base in your thinking, and most sane Republicans would agree w/ me.

[Moneyguy1]

Hey..our senator out here doesn't always agree with his party either and on some occasions has been downright ornery..Just the way we like 'em out here in AZ........

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by speeder
As far as anyone being a traitor to their country, you accuse people who have worn the uniform and risked their lives for the U.S.,

No Denis, I accuse people who falsify injuries sustained in order to further political careers as traitors. I accuse people who bring super-8s to Vietnam for a self-manufactured photo-op of being traitors. I accuse people who join anti-American pro-Communist groups like the VVAW, who lie about pattern attrocities, as traitors. I accuse people who throw their medals (or somebody else's, or his ribbons, or whatever his story is) in contempt and then hang them proudly as resembling an opportunist, even a traitor. I go with a majority of those who served with JFKerry in his cut-and-run service of 4 months when they say he is a liar, an opportunist and a traitor...The men who criticize him didn't cut and run after three Purple Hearts received for very very minor wounds, they stayed and were true heros...John Forbes Kerry was not.

War heros don't mention they are war heros every 5 minutes, cowards and opportunists do.

[speeder]

Your post is full of lies; you need to get off of the right-wing hate sites and think for yourself. Seriously. Open your mind, like you claim to have done when you went from being a leftist(??) to the conservative genius that you are now, talk to people w/ more tolerant views and LISTEN. Reading absolute bull***** on political "hit sites" is not the same.

Is John Kerry a saint that is going to baptise the country? Of course not. He is a politician w/ character defects, and also great attributes. Holding GW Bush to the trial standards that you are using for Kerry would result in impeachment and life in prison at the very least, seriously, just listen only to his most rabid, foaming at the mouth, invective-spewing extremist enemies and see what the conclusion would be. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Do not allow any testimony from dissenting voices, or at the least, discount it immediately as from corrupt sources. No matter what.

DId I miss anything?

[Tyson Schmidt]

I'm dying to know what weapons systems won the Cold War for us.

I was under the impression that the Cold War was won economically.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by Tyson Schmidt
I'm dying to know what weapons systems won the Cold War for us.

I was under the impression that the Cold War was won economically.

Time for brief history snippet:

1) SDI (space defense initiative), which didn't exist but was strongly put forth by Reagan, scared the heck out of the Soviets because they were sure we could actually build it.

2) The threat of a massive buildup of missles within NATO european countries aimed at the USSR.

Obviously not *thee* reasons the USSR was toppled but *significant* factors in addition to economically spending them into oblivion...

[nostatic]

I don't think I would hold SDI out as a positive for anything other than a prime example boondoggle, debt-causing spending. Pretty expensive "psychological" weapon. We should have built a doomsday device instead...

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by nostatic
We should have built a doomsday device instead...

Yes, but we already had that and so did the Soviets...hence "SDI"...

[djmcmath]

Maybe I'm biased, but I was always taught that the ballistic missile submarines with their untouchable payload of Mutually Assured Destruction, while fantastically expensive (but affordable, thanks to the economy), were a huge factor in winning the cold war. What was Kerry's vote on SSBNs?

Dan

[rcecale]

I believe they call that "Peace through superior fire power."

Quite an effective approach, as was demonstrated by the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Was it the only cause of the collapse? Probably not. Was it instrumental? Better believe it, bud!

Randy

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by rcecale
I believe they call that "Peace through superior fire power."

Quite an effective approach, as was demonstrated by the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Was it the only cause of the collapse? Probably not. Was it instrumental? Better believe it, bud!

At the time of Reagan's saber rattling towards the U.S.S.R. the media (and notable liberal naysayers) made little mention of the former Communist dictatorship being on shaky ground. If fact, Reagan was called a "warmonger," "dangerous," and "simple-minded"...For walking away from Reykjavik he was said to have "fumbled," it was a "debacle," and a "colossal blunder."

Reykjavik saw a defiant Reagan ignore Gorbachev and media negativists, trying to prevent SDI...this cost Communism big-time.

-- Walter Mondale said Reagan's policy toward thee Soviets put the world in imminent danger.

-- Strob Talbot (Clinton's deputy secretary of state) said, after Reagan assumed office, "The U.S. most learn to live with parity. Whether America likes it or not, Leonid Breshnev is quite correct in describing any U.S. quest for nuclear supremacy as misguided. The U.S. cannot get there from here -- not against a Soviet Union that is ready and able to match America in any kind of arms race."

But I thought they they were crumbling?

-- Strob Talbot also said it was, "wishful thinking to predict that international Communism some day will either self-destruct or so exhaust itself in internecine conflict that other nations will no longer be threatened."

-- Strob Talbot also said, "The Soviet Union still has plenty of resources" and they were "well desiged to be impervious to the consequences of the economic failure."

-- 35 Soviet experts from Harvard, Columbia and Cornell (and others) said, "The Soviet Union is going to remain a stable state, with a very stable, conservative, immobile government...We don't see any collapse or weakening of the Soviet System."


Looks like experts and Clinton pros and the media all thought Reagan was wrong, the Soviet Communists were strong, and standing up to them was dangerous.

Reagan was right...Democrats and liberals were wrong...again.

[fintstone]

Sadly, Zell has become a living oxymoron...an honest/patriotic democratic politician.

[A Quiet Boom]

I think Zell stays in the hope that he can return his party to the mainstream with his views. For that he is certainly not a traitor to his party, he is trying to be it's savior. Just my guess.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by A Quiet Boom I think Zell stays in the hope that he can return his party to the mainstream with his views. For that he is certainly not a traitor to his party, he is trying to be it's savior. Just my guess.

Precisely...The modern Democrat party has left honor, dignity and the party of JFK in disgrace...There once was a time when back-stabbing stopped during war-time...The Democrats have sunk to new lows, aiding and abetting Islamofascists, dividing the country with lies and distortions, demoralizing the troops and broadcasting this divisive anti-American propaganda to like minded hate-America socialists worldwide.

[speeder]

"The party of JFK"....... ?

If JFK was alive, he'd be beating your ass w/ his cane and sticking an enema in your ear. God, what a set of cajones you have...

Read, my boy. And stay off the right-wing wack-job web sites. You're gonna be alright.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by speeder
"The party of JFK"....... ?

If JFK was alive, he'd be beating your ass w/ his cane and sticking an enema in your ear. God, what a set of cajones you have...

Read, my boy. And stay off the right-wing wack-job web sites. You're gonna be alright.

By today's standards, JFK was a conservative of the Zel Miller variety...From warrior (of course he wasn't stabbed in the back during war-time, as is current en vogue with libeRATS) to fiscal conservativism...On the contrary, my blind and ignorant liberal dupe friend...you read...

December 14, 1962...

JFK's Speech to the Economic Club of NY



"In short to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures. Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the three following tests: First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.

Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues - but the greater danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective. Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption as well as investment. After-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry.

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.


We have done this through the investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances - two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective - demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least fifteen percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

Next year's tax bill must reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes - for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay: And for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital. Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our tax system."


Now who would get slapped?...You my offensive pick-pocket liberal friend.

[Mulholland]

"I fear that some of the Democratic presidential candidates are treading on very dangerous ground for the party and, more importantly, for the country.

"I do not question their patriotism; I question their judgment. They are doing what politicians often do, playing to the loudest, most active and most emotional group of supporters, feeding off frustration while clawing to find some advantage. I've done it myself and lived to regret it. My concern is that, without meaning to, they are exacerbating the difficulties of a nation at war."

Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt. It's demagogy, pure and simple. They should stop this, or at least modify it into a more civil discourse."

Zell Miller

He is being diplomatic, the Democrats are the party of treason and sedition.

Say it with me, speedo..."Sandy Bergler"