 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:24 pm Post subject: The Communists of America are at it again. . . |
 |
|
I used to think that I was capable of voting for a Democrat as I was a Republican.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrat Party has been (or was) co-opted by the Communist Party of America. This election has all but proved it to me.
All of the crys for violence against Republicans by the AFL-CIO and Labor Unions and the New York Times, CBS ForgeryGate, ABC MemoGate, George Soros, Michael Moore, makes me wonder. There is a connection or a vested interest by all. 
And I don't believe for one minute that those Union give a rats rump about their membership. How do I know this? Because I had been a member (forced by law "member" to keep my job) and all they cared about was collecting those dues, NOT IN PROTECTING the rights of any members! They only "cared" about the membership when they wanted to hike dues.
There is certainly a connection there, and for the sake of our country, we have got to find out and take it to the public.
If this article and the resent days (since the election) MSM press don't prove it, I don't know what will.
I am going to have to do research on when this actually happened and how, but for now, read this article. And remember that it is from a "respectable, objective" major media source.
The NYT and this article are beyond the even remotely tolerable.
The NYT might as well be Provda, or worse.
Here is the link, but you need a sign on to get to the original article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07murp.html?amp;oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=
I sure do hope the FBI and Secret Service are on this. Here is this despicable piece of "journalism."
| Quote: | November 7, 2004
BOLTS FROM THE POLITICAL BLUE
Can History Save the Democrats?
By DEAN E. MURPHY
LITTLE more than a month before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln stood at the east portico of the Capitol and delivered his second inaugural address. It was a brief speech with a distinctly religious message: he twice cited biblical verses, and made a dozen references to God, most strikingly in assessing the opposing sides in the Civil War.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other," Lincoln said. "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
The address was roundly criticized in some newspapers for overstepping the bounds separating church and state. But Lincoln was using God to debunk government-by-God.
Now, with George W. Bush's re-election, God and a newly triumphant Republican president are once again in the headlines. And there are signs that the present national divide, between the narrow but solid Republican majority and a Democratic party seemingly trapped in second place, may be hardening into a pattern that will persist for years to come.
Democrats, especially, are left to wonder: What will it take to break the pattern - an act of God?
History suggests several possibilities for a major reshaping event - a national calamity, a deep schism in the ruling party, the implosion of a social movement under the excesses of its own agenda or the emergence of an extraordinary political figure.
Lincoln became president and the Republicans first took national power when the Democrats tore themselves and the nation apart over slavery and secession. Another national trauma, the Great Depression, produced a sweeping realignment in favor of the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Religious revivals and movements have also gusted periodically through American politics, sometimes reshaping the landscape as they go, said Susan Jacoby, author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism." But she said it was not easy to find a historical blueprint for the current situation, with the religious right forming the core of Mr. Bush's majority.
The closest parallel, Ms. Jacoby said, might be the Christian temperance movement. It eventually "defeated itself," she said, with the absolutism of Prohibition, which spawned outlandish bootlegging and crime problems and made lawbreaking fashionable. The Depression eventually pushed joblessness and poverty ahead of temperance on the social agenda.
Even so, Ms. Jacoby said, that religious-political movement, smaller than the one swelling behind Mr. Bush, took decades to play itself out, and was not linked to a single party, as the Christian right is now. "What we have today is an unprecedented situation in American history, in terms of the willingness of a large number of people, backed up by the president, who want to infuse more religion into government," Ms. Jacoby said.
Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, saw two instances in history when the American electoral landscape resembled that of today. "They are kind of scary examples," Professor Wilentz said. "One is 1860, and we know what happened after that one, and the other was 1896, the McKinley-Bryan election."
That contest, which seemed to herald a new era of Republican dominance, also started a chain of events that led to a disastrous schism in the party. William McKinley, a conservative Republican, defeated William Jennings Bryan, a populist Democrat, and won the first clear popular majority in 24 years. He beat Bryan even more soundly in 1900, but less than a year later, he was assassinated.
His death was a tragedy and a fluke, Professor Wilentz said, but it changed the course of political history. Had McKinley not been killed, Marcus A. Hanna, the political handler who was as instrumental to McKinley's success as Karl Rove has been to Mr. Bush's, would have pursued his dream of "creating a Republican machine that would go on forever," Professor Wilentz said.
Instead, Theodore Roosevelt became president, and pursued progressive policies at home and power projection abroad. "What followed shifted the Republican Party in a direction it had not planned to go, and created the groundwork for 1912 and eventually the New Deal," Professor Wilentz said. When his successor, William H. Taft, turned back to conservatism, Roosevelt ran against him in 1912 on the Progressive, or Bull Moose, ticket, and split the Republican Party, yielding the White House to the Democrats and Woodrow Wilson.
"One can't imagine what American history might have looked like had McKinley continued to the end of his second term," Professor Wilentz said.
Similarly, George Wallace stormed out of the Democratic Party in the 1960's over desegregation and states' rights, and took many conservative Southerners with him, weakening the party's hold on a region that has since turned solidly Republican.
A split like those could happen again. The war in Iraq could become so unpopular that it would dog Mr. Bush and the Republicans the way that the Vietnam War did President Johnson and the Democrats. Fault lines are already visible in the Republican party between social and fiscal conservatives, and they could split open.
Another realigning event could be the emergence of a paladin in the Democratic Party, a charismatic or heroic figure who could rise above ordinary politics, reinvent the party's popular appeal and break through the Republican fortress to capture some of Mr. Bush's support. Given the modern political realities - no Northern Democrat has won an absolute majority of the popular vote since F.D.R. - "that hero better have a drawl," said John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.
Or, as occurred in the early 20th century, new waves of immigrants entering the electorate could tip the scales heavily toward one party or the other.
Such tectonic shifts, though, are rare - or at least, shifts that are sustained for more than an election cycle or two. Bill Clinton was a charismatic Democrat who managed to win the White House for two terms, but afterward it slipped back to the Republicans; Dwight D. Eisenhower broke a 20-year Democratic monopoly in 1952, but John F. Kennedy retook the White House in 1960.
Not every nation-shaking event alters the political landscape. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at Hamilton College, said the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, do not seem to qualify as a realigning event. Though Mr. Bush made a point during the campaign of telling voters how much Sept. 11 had changed him, there was little sign that the attacks had a significant effect on voting patterns this year, Professor Klinkner said.
"It is really incremental movement," he said of Mr. Bush's re-election. "The correlation between the vote in 2000 and 2004 was about as high as any pair of elections since the late 19th century. Essentially, Bush did 3 percentage points better this time, and he did so everywhere."
Nonetheless, Bruce E. Cain, the director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was no doubt that Mr. Bush had himself remade the political equation, ensuring Republican dominance "for the foreseeable future."
Call them cultural, values or religious issues, Professor Cain said, they have fallen overwhelmingly into Republican hands. The Democrats are still capable of winning the presidency if the Republicans trip up, but they are decidedly on the wrong side of "the dominant paradigm" in American politics, he said.
"Bush has done what no religious leader in the past has been able to do," Professor Cain said. "He has united the Protestants and the Catholics."
That Mr. Bush won by a relatively narrow margin matters little in a historical context, Professor Cain and others said. Lincoln, who oversaw the most radical political break in American history, was elected with just 39.8 percent of the popular vote in 1860.
Yet David R. Mayhew, a professor of political science at Yale, cautioned against reading too much into any of the numbers. Mr. Bush's victory could be seen as extraordinary - the first time a president won re-election after failing to win the popular vote in his first term - or as commonplace, since two-thirds of presidents who have sought re-election have won.
"I think this is mostly an ebb-and-flow election," Professor Mayhew said.
Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the foundation for lasting Republican dominance.
"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."
Until the next act of God, that is. |
Hat tip: LittleGreenFootballs
For all the comments: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13507_NYT_Wishes_for_Act_of_God_to_Remove_Bush#comments |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe I just read what I read.
| Quote: | | the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, do not seem to qualify as a realigning event. |
That, alone, should tip off any thinking person that this article was written by someone with their head not quite screwed on straight.
The world tipped and went insane on 9-11 and I thought we'd seen the worst.
But, now we have what's left of the corrupt leftist media advocating an "act of God?"
This comes very close to the comment made by that guardian.uk cretin who wondered where were Oswald and Hinckley when you really needed them.
In-freaking-credible.
I hope all of you have got your typing fingers going, today.
This article needs to get posted on any board within its terms of use and sent to everyone you know who is interested in conservative thought.
Insane. Just insane. Every time you think our media can't get any worse, they prove you're mistaken.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msindependent
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 891
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And how many blocks was the NYT from the WTC? They are not only nasty, they are stupid.
Last edited by msindependent on Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it my imagination or does this creep actually hint that there might be an assassination attempt or some other equally nasty event coming?
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocsparky101
PO1
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Allen Park. Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Barbie, Barbie, Barbie. Are you forgetting the Mc Carthy Hearings, Walter Cronkite and his America is losing the War, the coverage of the VVAW and the anti war movement during the 70s, the blame America attitude, the far left agenda of the MSM, the blatient attempts in 2000 and 2004 to influence the elections with their exit polls. Not to mention all the positive coverage of anything left. If none of this convinces you that they have been influenced many years ago might I suggest you monitor the web site www.cpuse.org web site. Some day they may come right out and say it. Normally they don't though. Like with sKerry all they said was they were not going to have a canidate this election cycle for President because they did not want to take votes away from other canidates and they had the 10 reasons not to vote for GW Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lrb111
Captain
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ocsparky101 wrote: | | Barbie, Barbie, Barbie. Are you forgetting the Mc Carthy Hearings, Walter Cronkite and his America is losing the War, the coverage of the VVAW and the anti war movement during the 70s, the blame America attitude, the far left agenda of the MSM, the blatient attempts in 2000 and 2004 to influence the elections with their exit polls. Not to mention all the positive coverage of anything left. If none of this convinces you that they have been influenced many years ago might I suggest you monitor the web site www.cpuse.org web site. Some day they may come right out and say it. Normally they don't though. Like with sKerry all they said was they were not going to have a canidate this election cycle for President because they did not want to take votes away from other canidates and they had the 10 reasons not to vote for GW Bush. |
 a typo sparky, www.cpusa.org
_________________
said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice."
well, when even the DNC can see it,,,,, then kerry is toast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the heads up and reminder ocsparky: 
| Quote: | | Barbie, Barbie, Barbie. Are you forgetting the Mc Carthy Hearings, Walter Cronkite and his America is losing the War, the coverage of the VVAW and the anti war movement during the 70s, the blame America attitude, the far left agenda of the MSM, the blatient attempts in 2000 and 2004 to influence the elections with their exit polls. Not to mention all the positive coverage of anything left. |
McCarthy Hearings (way before my time, but I would very much like to research them) and Walter Cronkite (kind of before my time, but my father rarely watched him for some reason; gut feeling I guess. I need to ask him more about this) and the VVAW and anti-war movement (I was just a little girl, but kinda sorta remember it at the time that it was happening. I lived on an air force base at the time, my father and that kept me somewhat shielded from what was going on.)
All of what you mentioned ocsparky are worth more research and reflection on my part. Thank you again for the heads up.
But you know what is funny? I stopped watching the MSM in 1992 at the end of the Bush I/Clinton election. It was obvious to me that the MSM were in the tank with Clinton then, and sounded exactly alike. I didn't know why that was happening at the time, but the pieces of that puzzle are coming together today.
Funny, during Rathergate I couldn't believe how much Blather had changed since I hadn't seen him since 1992. The coverage during this election, was much more aggressive against the Republican candidate than back in 1992, but it has not suprised me. Actually, I saw the coverage of the 1992 election more as "protecting" and "pumping" Clinton, than in down right attacking Bush I. This time, it was both "pumping" Kerry and attacking Bush II.
As you suggested ocsparky, I visited www.cpusa.org (Communist Pary website), and low and behold I found the Communist Party and the AFL-CIO on their front page, message in unison (suprise, suprise):
| Quote: | WASHINGTON — Bruised but unbowed by labor’s failure to oust George W. Bush in the Nov. 2 election, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney told a news conference here that the movement will “fight like hell” to stop Bush’s ultra-right agenda in his second term.
“Yesterday’s election was breathtakingly close. There is clearly no conservative mandate for our nation,” Sweeney said. The people reject Bush policies of outsourcing jobs, privatizing Social Security and are demanding affordable health care, he said. Sweeney spoke at a crowded news conference at AFL-CIO headquarters the day after the vote. |
Bold #1: I knew there was a connection. Now, I just have to document what it is in it for the Union, cuz I am darned sure in not for the membership. The Union looks out for the Union, the membership be damned. All that talk of looking out for the membership is just that. . . TALK (with their hand out for more dues and power over the members.)
Bold #2: Really? Not counting the Union's get out the phoney vote, Bush does have at least a majority of support, not to mention the conservative gains in both House & Senate.
Bold #3: I saw that "press conference" (in rerun) and it was hardly "crowded."
| Quote: | | “America’s union members came out in huge numbers and voted overwhelmingly for the candidate who had their issues at heart,” Sweeney continued. He warned against a “rush to judgment,” calling on election boards across the country to “count every vote cast in this election. That is the message from the nightmare of 2000. Record numbers of voters stood in long, long lines yesterday to make their voices heard. … We must count their votes.” He was referring to places like Ohio, where hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots must be verified and counted. |
Bold: Now we don't really believe that he may have helped mastermind, how shall we say, questionable ballots?? Hmmmmmmmmmm??
I am going to archive the entire article for reference, but should anyone wish to see its full text:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/597/1/27/
Anyway, there is much more here than meets the eye.
I guess the question I have is: Why does the Communist Party embrace the AFL-CIO so much? Kerry? the Democrats? And why do they hate Bush so much?? Didn't Kerry meet with Communists in the early 1970's??
Since it is obvious that the Communist Party loves Kerry so much, does this mean he would have enacted policies that the Communist Party would find in tune with their ideology? Didn't Kerry advance Communist cause when he supported U.S. acceptance of the North Vietnamese "terms?"
If they hate Bush so much, must this mean that he will enact policies that are contrary to the Communist ideology?
Do we see a pattern or pieces of the same puzzle emerging?? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. . . . 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreeFall
LCDR
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Over at FreeRepublic, they had a post where the communist party had a link to Moveon.org.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961227/posts
And the website of the Democratic socialist party endorses Kerry on their website.
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
So there is a lot of evidence that the Democratic party has been taken over, or at least influenced, by the communist/socialist parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | I can't believe I just read what I read.
| Quote: | | the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, do not seem to qualify as a realigning event. |
|
EJ - that is the EXACT phrase that leapt out of the article at me, too!!
Guess the author just wasn't moved much by the thought of fanatics deciding they had a plan to kill as many Americans as they could -- and will continue on with that plan as long as they can. No, what he is really afraid of is the right-wing conspiracy and all the religion in our culture. What he is really afraid of is George Bush. I'm not religious -- but I am not "threatened" by a president who is or who has supporters that are. That is ridiculous and I don't even see it as an issue. I've yet to see a complete list of all the rights and freedoms I've lost because my president believes in prayer. ??
As to the radicals and the neo-communists -- David Horowitz has a new book out: "Unholy Alliance--Radical Islam and the American Left" that helps immensely in understanding what is going on with these elements in our country today and their dangerous influence on the democrats (a history of American communism and an exploration of the "Mind of the Left," so to speak). Here's a discussion of the book for your info in case you are interested: UNHOLY ALLIANCE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony54
PO2
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why does it surprise anyone that the Democrats are preaching communistic agendas.
Tha Democrats have been working to make the USA a communist country since the 60's.
All their main ideals are basically the same Karl Marx expected of a country. (Government control of jobs, industry, medical, media, especially MEDIA, and no God or religion) The Democrats been following this line of thinking to 'T'.
Why don't they just call themselves communists?
Because they know we are not brainwashed enough to accept communism, and if they called themselves communists, they would loose 50% of their voting base right off the top.
But they try to implement it in steps.
Socialized medicine, gun control, government owned and run industries,
tax the rich out of existance without taxing the poor thereby eventually making one class of citizens= "middle class" with no guns and no God.
Thank God WE THE PEOPLE are a little smarter then they think,
otherwise our flag would have a hammer and sickle on it by now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
