When hatred clouds good judgment

[jeskibuff]

I've run across some more goodies on DemocraticUnderground lately, but this has to be a quick post, so I only have time to share this one with you.

In this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1015896 we have the OP (ThomWV) admitting his deceptive ploy: I tell them (his fellow "dumb" WV'ers) that one of Bush's senior advisors, Richard Pearle, is promoting a National ID card for all Americans, one that will have your name and your home address on it but what with the computers these days one that is also linked to the FBI center right down the road in Clarksburg, WV. I tell them further that there is a firearms database at that FBI center and that card they are going to have to carry (they will be jailed if they are caught without it) tells the Bush's Government right where to go to get their guns, to know every detail about their finances, including the purchase of ammunition, and that it is the first step in making slaves of them.
At the end, he asks: So, am I dead wrong in doing this? How about just a little bit wrong?At least a little bit of conscience tries to make an appearance! :rolleyes:
Note the varied responses he gets and the number of posts of the responders:
1000+ posts: I feel it is all right...though the details you provide may not be exactly fulfilled, the general spirit of what you describe is deadly accurate. you are in effect making a parable.
931 posts: ...if you get caught stretching the truth you liable to lose your credibility amongst the people you talk to.(a decent response for a member with 900+ posts...good for you, Imajika)
2 posts: i absolutely agree that it's best to stick to truth, and there's no deficit of that to support your arguments.Good for you, "antfarm", although the second part of your statement is an exaggeration. Maybe as a newbie you realize that you may have to counterbalance a positive with a negative on DU to keep you from getting your posts deleted and your ability to post taken away, but I think you're serious!
1000+ posts: Wouldn't it be possible...to just say that once the ID card is in place, it is a simple matter to do these other things and that government has a history of doing them?In other words, persuade with unfounded fear.

[piece-it pete]

And GWB is being tarred with it? It was the GOP that stopped Clinton issuing one!

Man we've all got a short memory!

I've been so busy lately my quality AR time has suffered. I've been reading these DU posts with great interest.

What I find interesting is that there are those rare Dems who actually have some sense. So far on the posts you've mentioned there has been the voice of semi-reason rebutting the worst of it. (Commies? Realpolitik? No wonder the radical Dems are gaining power!)

Pete

[jeskibuff]

What I find interesting is that there are those rare Dems who actually have some sense. So far on the posts you've mentioned there has been the voice of semi-reason rebutting the worst of it
It is very entertaining, for sure! And occasionally, I am surprised by something. Ever since I found this one, I've wanted to post about it, but now I have the time. Check out:
It's interesting how much I dislike Clinton now (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1014810)
I get almost teary-eyed reading it! :D Here are some goodies out of it, which gives me SOME hope that these DUh'ers aren't totally whacko!
I think that he is as conniving, manipulative, and untrustworthy as the right has always said. How many more votes for Gore if the penis would have stayed in the pants? Without Clinton's DLC policies, would Nader have been able to attract the voters he did?
...this prosperity part, well that was great if you were in the stock market, but if you were an ordinary stiff you were faced with the stark reality of an economy where the gap between the rich and the rest of us grew to a record setting chasm, whilst the buying power of the ordinary wage earner continued to plumb record depths. And quite frankly the catalyst for this economic "boom" was the high tech bubble, and that would have happened whether or not Clinton was at the helm. Clinton was just fortunate enough to be able to ride it. And I would like you to notice that Clinton managed to burst this bubble, what with his "free" trade agreements and his backing of expanded use of the H1-B visa program. Now all of those well paying high tech jobs are either being performed overseas, or are being filled here in the US by foreign workers who get paid much less.
people seem to conveniently forget that we lost the Congress during his watch, after 40 years of dominating that body. during Clinton's administration, the Democrats lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.
Is that a fact? Wow... I knew it was bad... but I never knew HOW bad. And to think... I was just dismissed after bemoaning the DLC's 'logic' of how to conduct our business with the factoid that it's 'normal' for the party not in the WH to lose seats.
I guess that blows that 'argument' out of the water. what the hell is he doing as a Bilderberger, along with Kissinger, and Kenneth Lay? People treat it like a team sport. He's on 'our side' so we must support him! Put your blinders on and salute, damn you! He's better than the evil demons on the other side, right? I've felt this way for quite awhile. I feel he didn't live up to his potential and squandered away an awful lot with his shennanigans. By the time Clinton left office, I had become convinced . . . that he was really nothing more than a slick politician with some very serious psychiatric pathologies at work inside him. To this day, what bothers me more than anything else is that my Republican acquaintances were right about him all along. This country would have been better off if he had lost in 1992. He scammed us into thinking he was for the little guy. Clinton put himself ahead of the country and the party, and he's still trying to run the show from the DLC. I still believe Bill and Hillary want Bush to win in 2004 so she will be set to go in 2008, and they'll trainwreck the Dem nominee's chances for their own political power. "But I still love him like a lemming should." Well done! You just summed up in a single sentence the one characteristic of the electorate that has done more to destroy politics in this country more than any other. IMO Laziness comes second after this mind-numbing fealty to party rather than active pursual of a good candidate. Yep, I think he's a shyster. I didn't care about what he and Monica did, but it had a major impact on the 2000 election, IMO, and I'll never forgive him for that. And if Clinton was so great, why did we lose so many House and Senate seats when he was in office? These past 18 months my disappointmen in Clinton has grown by leaps/bounds It took years of reading the news and observing what has happened to our country these last decades. We're so conditioned in this 2-party system to blame everything on the "other" party that we rarely examine our own faults. Since being at DU, I've evolved from a big time Clinton admirer to an extemely disappointed and disillusioned voter...I am beyond disgusted. This is what I expected from the "other" guys- not from our own. It is just another calculated move by Bill and Hill to maintain their grip on the party aparatus and purse strings. It gives them ultimate control to determine just who gets to run for office as a Democrat, maintaining their sphere of influence and ensures only their loyalists get elected. This serves them well to pave Hillary's way to the nomination in 2008 (yes, 2008 - lets face facts, that's how the Clintons want it). And while there was an economic boom, look at the statistics: 1 out of 4 jobs was under $8/hr, and the other three weren't always terrific either. CEO pay went up 500% while workers did twice the effort and got nothing more in the end...We are in a big divide these days. Clinton could have stopped it. But didn't. He's as sleazy as all the other politicials.
Well, the encouraging thing here is that SOME of these DUh'ers are finally realizing what most Republicans knew before Clinton took office. So, maybe there's an 11-year lag. Maybe in 2015 we'll hear these same DUh'ers say "We were SO wrong about GWB, coming up with any whacko conspiracy theory we could think of to discredit him. We just hated him so much that we couldn't think straight!".

Who knows?

We can HOPE, can't we??? :D

[Umrswimr]

Can I get a cliffnotes version of that? :D

[jeskibuff]

Can I get a cliffnotes version of that? :D

Always happy to oblige:

Despite the fact that MANY people knew early on that Bill and Hillary were two of the biggest con artists in politics, other people held them in the highest esteem, but after living 11 years in denial of the truth, those other people are FINALLY realizing that they were VERY wrong! ;)