Again, Trace, I repeat your previous quote:

In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.

And I repeat my response.

You are going to vote for people with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.

While I admire your attempts to studiously avoid what you said about the 2006 elections, they will not work. Furthermore, I think the fact that you will vote for people with whom you disagree in 2006 just because they’re not Bush only strengthens the argument that your vote in 2008 will be based on your anti-Bush hatred as well.

In short, Trace, your actions in 2006 reveal your true motivations.

It seems to be a running theme on this blog that when anyone questions the popular belief, or asks frequent posters to explain their positions, they get defensive and change the subject as you have done in post 45. I’ll certainly say it now in this post that when one gets defensive about the inquiry, it is usually an indication that he or she is not able to explain their views…or feels guilty about them. I expect this from freerepublic.com, not from gaypatriot.net.

When one turns the focus of a topic from the inquiry to the poster him or herself, no credibility is gained and the point of view gains no ground.

In post 21, the poster provided a list, interesting to me, although I disagree with most of the list, and stated so in my second post, and was in fact, a response that one should expect in response to my initial post.

Finally, in post 23, the same thing was done, albeit with a completely unneccessary opening paragraph.

Members of this community will go further when they drop the name calling and stop taking everything so personally. Said advice applies equally to Democratic Underground for any other readers here from that community.

Daniel Reimann

You don’t set the agenda and you don’t dictate the answers. Matt and VdK have given you some fine points. Why don’t you deal with the dialogue they’ve provided and that you claim to want instead of whining about how hard and hostile everyone else is. You’re no lamb at the slaughterhouse.

Well, he was one of them, wasn’t he? My guess is that they figured that he probably knew what he was doing and they should give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, we’ve seen what happens when a guy who spent absolutely NO time on the anti-war Left marches onto the battlefield – they waste no time calling him a warmonger.

Let me remind you of what you previously said, Trace:

In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.

I repeat myself. You are going to vote for people with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.

And then you’re going to do the same thing in 2008.

It’s a shame people can’t enjoy this forum to express opinions or debate issues without people like you knocking opinions as irrational, disagreement as hatred and dissent as anti-American.

Unfortunately, Trace, the fact that I knock things as irrational, hatred, or anti-American is not based on the fact that I disagree with them, per se; it’s based on whether they actually are irrational, hatred-oriented, or anti-American.

Like I pointed out, someone who criticizes Bush for certain acts, but then plans to vote for people who will do MORE of those acts, is acting irrationally and, in this case, out of hatred for Bush.

Nancy Pelosi and her puppets are manipulating peoples’ anti-Bush hatred like yours, to help people to rationalize voting for them; they know anti-Bush hatred is the one thing that kept John Kerry from losing in a landslide.

raj/ian, you’ve been spending too much time reviewing Oliver Stone movies in your little trailer in Newton… come out into the light of day. While that might be acceptable to GayLeft anti-American types like you, it isn’t to me.

I doubt you are a child molester. But that’s no ringing endorsement because, like most here, I simply doubt most of what you say… silly man.

No rational person can really believe that my refusal to support any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, other than Rudy Giuliani…

Simmer down. Don’t let NDXXX get under your skin. He’s just a nutcase who can type a lot, but doesn’t have anything to say. Query why, since he can type so rapidly, he doesn’t volunteer to type for the FedGov over in Iraq, since he supports the Bushies so much.

On Giuliani, much as I might like to support him, I cannot, for the reasons I stated here:

I cannot stand Giuliani. When he was prosecutor in NYC, he made a point of engaging in high profile arrests of people that he had accused of white color crimes while they were in their offices, before TV cameras (always call the press!), with the obvious intent of embarrassing them before they had even been arraigned. Then he would get in from of the cameras and basically try his case outside of the courtroom–with the obvious intent of trying to taint the jury pool.

And when he was mayor, his police department engaged in more then a few instances of police brutality, the two most famous of which are Abner Louima (whom the police sodomized with a broomstick) and Amadou Diallou (who was murdered by the police). Did Giuliani actually commit those acts or other, lesser-known, acts of police brutality? No. But he did set a tone in his administration that allowed if not encouraged them to happen.

Nothing to do with gay issues. And nothing to do with 9/11. All to do with his grandstanding.

Just to let you know, I am an equal opportunity disparager. The lead candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor in Massachusetts is the state’s current Attorney General, Tom Reilly. I would never vote for him. Why? Not because of his defense of the state’s ban on same sex marriages while he was AG. It’s because of his completely unethical–bordering on criminal–persecution of the Amirault family during the Fells Acres Day School fiasco during the child molestation pre-school scare in the 1980s. Remember, that was the time of the McMartin day school prosecutions and others? Most of the convictions were overturned in the same time period Reilly was unwilling to admit that his evidence during his persecutions of the Amiraults had been tainted by psychologist snake-oil salesmen. I’m still livid about that, and as far as I’m concerned, Reilly’s unrelenting persecution of the Amiraults makes him unsuitable to be governor.

/rant

BTW, I’m sure that NDXXX or Matty or V the K will now accuse me of supporting child molesters. It would be a typical response from them.

#24: raj, I made no comment whatsoever on the issue of whether a trade agreement is or is not a treaty. I was simply pointing out how Lou Dobbs glossed over and omitted the name of Clinton in his discussion of same.

What purpose would it have served for Dobbs to have included the name of Clinton in a story on NAFTA? NAFTA was started and largely negotiated during the presidency of GHWBush. Clinton signed it in Sept 1993 after concluding the negotiations. GHWB attended the signing ceremony and lauded its having been brought to conclusion. It was a bi-partisan affair. Indeed, during the 1992 election debates, Ross Perot chastized candidates of both parties for pursuing trade agreements like NAFTA–remember his “great sucking sound” remark?

George W. Bush isn’t on the ballot in 2008 and as far as I am concerned isn’t a factor in choosing his successor. No rational person can really believe that my refusal to support any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, other than Rudy Giuliani, is hatred for George Bush.

It’s a shame people can’t enjoy this forum to express opinions or debate issues without people like you knocking opinions as irrational, disagreement as hatred and dissent as anti-American. It frequently seems that you’re not as upset about disagreements with the president as you are if anyone dares to disagree with your opinions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Shakespeare.

Enough said.

Eric in Hollywood

While I agree with many of President Bush’s foreign policy positions I disagree with almost all of his domestic policies.

Which, as V the K pointed out, in several ways mirror Democrats’ domestic policies. Indeed, the biggest criticism of Bush from Dems is that he isn’t doing ENOUGH regulation, escalated government spending, control of education, welfare increases, etc.

Then we come to this statement:

In a comment I said I am voting Democratic this fall and (unless Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee) am likely to vote Democratic in 2008.

In short, you’re going to vote for someone with whom you likely, given the Dems’ promise to vastly increase taxes, vastly accelerate spending across the board, including on entitlements programs like Medicare, impose new and punishing regulations on corporations and businesses, will disagree on BOTH foreign and domestic policies — just because they aren’t Bush.

That’s irrational. And I don’t know what else to call it — other than hatred.