The theme of the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night is "A Stronger More Secure America," which will be capped off by a rousing speech from a renowned law-and-order Democrat: Al Sharpton. No joke.

Here are five other reasons to be afraid, very afraid, of putting a Democratic administration in charge of guarding America's gates.

1. Ted Kennedy. The senior bloviator from Massachusetts has worked relentlessly since the Sept. 11 attacks to cripple homeland defense. For once, Teresa Heinz-Kerry speaks for me: "Ted Kennedy I don't trust."

Last January, he secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) -- a Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country. Last month, he introduced legislation that would gut the PATRIOT Act and radically restructure the immigration court system to protect and strengthen illegal aliens' rights.

He opposes allowing the nation's 600,000 local and state law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And, in proposing that the federal government maintain a new national registry of law-abiding gun purchasers, he has exploited the War on Terrorism to advance his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

If the Sept. 11 attacks were a "failure of imagination" as the 9/11 commission concluded, protecting America requires that we imagine this bone-chilling scenario and do all we can to prevent another disaster: Ted Kennedy, attorney general of the United States.

2. The American Civil Liberties Union. The organization maintains dangerously absolutist positions against the use of torture to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists, against the designation of enemy combatants apprehended on either foreign or American soil, and against common-sense profiling in wartime. The ACLU joined Sen. Kennedy in opposing the carefully targeted NSEERS program. It sued to stop enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which tightened employment requirements for airport screeners. And under the guise of protecting civil rights, the ACLU supported the infamous wall of separation that handicapped communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

In the nearly three years since the mass murder of 3,000 innocent people on American soil by fanatical Muslim terrorists, there is not a single law or policy that the ACLU has supported that would help prevent a bloody repeat of Sept. 11.

3. The Professional Grievance-Mongers. From the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the collective response of the Diversity Is Our Strength crowd to the War on Terror has been to cry, "Racist!" The ethnic shakedown artists who have sued over every slight and hyped every faked claim of a hate crime are America-bashing enablers of the worst sort -- and they are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

4. The Open Borders Lobby. Longtime readers know of my dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's unwillingness to get serious control of our immigration chaos. But if you are unhappy with the lack of progress on securing our land, air and sea ports of entry, it will only get worse under Kerry-Edwards. Groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Council of La Raza, and the Ford Foundation have protested enforcement, detention, deportation, employer sanctions, and secure identification measures every step of the way. It is from these ranks that a Democratic administration will draw upon to staff the Justice Department, Department of Transportation and Department of Homeland Security. Scary.

5. First Responder Fetishists. In her convention remarks on Monday night, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said the first homeland security priority in response to the 9/11 report was the "need to fully equip and train . . . our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack." Eager to suck up to men and women in uniform, John Kerry has proposed adding 100,000 first responders to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel nationwide. As I have said before, there is no question that our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need increased training and support -- but dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11.

And neither is voting the party of the Chicken Little Clean-Up Crew into office.

So who wrote that?

That's the most asinine thing I've ever read, and Nimrod's Son posts here.

Originally posted by Pumpkins23836
That's the most asinine thing I've ever read

Originally posted by Pumpkins23836
That's the most asinine thing I've ever read, and Nimrod's Son posts here.

Where to begin with reasons to fear the Republican party...

1. Bush Jr.
2. Dick Cheney
3. Donny Rumsfeld
4. John Ashcroft

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
1. Bush Jr.


Who's that?

By the way, and Nimrod did this the other day, I LOVE how Republicans continue to associate Kennedy with Kerry, the party and it's beliefs. Kennedy is almost a joke within the party, but because of his status is a bit of an "icon." He's a bit like Newt was, no one really supported him but he was too entrenched to stomp out.

Guys, Ted is just a senior senator who isn't pushing Dems buttons in this campaign. Give it a rest.

Two and four are indeed scary. The others not so much.

Oh, and Chris, I didn't compare Kennedy to Kerry. I simply said that the Democrats looked a little silly having Mr. Immoral Teddy giving a speech on morality.

Originally posted by spa ced


Where to begin with reasons to fear the Republican party...

1. quagmire in iraq
2. stalled economy
3. rising healthcare cost
4. lowering average wage
5. anti-bush sentiment around the world
6. tax breaks for rich
7. the stripping of environmental laws to benefit big business
8. anti-gay marriage amendment


thats just a start.

Originally posted by Debaser


8. anti-gay marriage amendment


To their credit, many Republicans disagree with this. It's the conservative Christian-based Republicans like Bush and Cheney that are so supportive of this.

Originally posted by sppunk


To their credit, many Republicans disagree with this. It's the conservative Christian-based Republicans like Bush and Cheney that are so supportive of this.

what's so scary is that the president of the united states who holds the power to appoint the members of the supreme court justice is supportive of it.

Some of you are so predictable its pathetic. The thread title says "Five reasons to fear the Democratic party." So naturally, people start talking about Republicans? What the hell, people? I know I shouldn't be surprised by this anymore, but I really wonder if you people are really so insecure in your political beliefs that you have to change the subject everytime something comes up that challenges them.

And not to mention the couple of you who just blindly dismissed the original post as 'asinine' and therefore not worth your time. This wasn't a joke post. It raised some points worth discussing, even if just to show that they don't matter for much. (More on that in a second.) But do you people really think the original post in this thread is more asinine than the "Things you have to believe to be a Republican" thread? More asinine than the "Democrats are smarter and better informed" HOAX that was taken seriously by 90 percent of you people? Really, a significant amount of the crap you people have posted that was supposed to be 'funny but true' (and was neither) has been infinitely more asinine than the serious (but slanted) post that started this thread.

As for the original post, the only biggies on the list for me would be, like Nimrod's Son posted earlier, #2 and #4. I used to be pretty willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the ACLU. I think that they do good things in a lot of cases. But their views on post-9/11 homeland security is a scary thing to behold. They had a speaker come to my school last year to speak on the Patriot Act. At the time, I hadn't read the thing, so I went in with an open mind, expecting to hear specifics about just why people have been railing against it so. Instead, I got horror stories about laws that haven't even been thought of, and technologies that haven't even been invented; and how they were going to ruin our lives. The guy literally said that we're heading for a future like the one seen in the movie "Minority Report." No joke. He also talked about how airline screening basically doesn't work, and probably won't ever; and therefore is more an affront to the rights of ordinary citizens than a terror-fighting tool. When asked if he was suggesting that we do away with airline screening altogether, he wormed out of the question by pulling rank and suggesting that a first-year law student just wouldn't understand. Insulting. Anyhow, its quite scary to think about what would happen if people more friendly to the ACLU than the current administration were placed into the position of homeland security.

As for the open borders thing, its scary to think that it could be worse than it is today. Bush's cowtowing to the open borders people is at least somewhat checked by fear of alienating his base. A Democratic adminstration would have no such problems.

Originally posted by Corganist


Corganist, you stupid motherfuck. Nobody addressed the first post because the accusations are worthless and aren't even direct attacks to the democratic party! stupid fucking platitudes.

Originally posted by Debaser


Corganist, you stupid motherfuck. Nobody addressed the first post because the accusations are worthless and aren't even direct attacks to the democratic party! stupid fucking platitudes.

Exactly.

But how about this....

1. Ted Kennedy. The senior bloviator from Massachusetts has worked relentlessly since the Sept. 11 attacks to cripple homeland defense. For once, Teresa Heinz-Kerry speaks for me: "Ted Kennedy I don't trust."

He is one U.S. Senator who happens to be a member of the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy does not = the Democratic Party. The U.S., essentially, has a two-party system. There are many, many, many, many different beliefs held by different people with each party. i.e. conservative Dems v. liberal Dems

Last January, he secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) -- a Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country. Last month, he introduced legislation that would gut the PATRIOT Act and radically restructure the immigration court system to protect and strengthen illegal aliens' rights.

He opposes allowing the nation's 600,000 local and state law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And, in proposing that the federal government maintain a new national registry of law-abiding gun purchasers, he has exploited the War on Terrorism to advance his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Once again, he is one man. This is exactly the reason why we have two senators from each and every state. And why there is a Senate and a House of Reps. Not to mention, an executive branch and a supreme court. Checks and balances.

If the Sept. 11 attacks were a "failure of imagination" as the 9/11 commission concluded, protecting America requires that we imagine this bone-chilling scenario and do all we can to prevent another disaster: Ted Kennedy, attorney general of the United States.

Oh please. Ted Kennedy will not be the attorney general.

2. The American Civil Liberties Union. The organization maintains dangerously absolutist positions against the use of torture to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists, against the designation of enemy combatants apprehended on either foreign or American soil, and against common-sense profiling in wartime. The ACLU joined Sen. Kennedy in opposing the carefully targeted NSEERS program. It sued to stop enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which tightened employment requirements for airport screeners. And under the guise of protecting civil rights, the ACLU supported the infamous wall of separation that handicapped communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

In the nearly three years since the mass murder of 3,000 innocent people on American soil by fanatical Muslim terrorists, there is not a single law or policy that the ACLU has supported that would help prevent a bloody repeat of Sept. 11.

The ACLU has also done a lot of good. And they are just one organization. There are plenty of other orgs and people out there to counter-balance the ACLU.

3. The Professional Grievance-Mongers. From the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the collective response of the Diversity Is Our Strength crowd to the War on Terror has been to cry, "Racist!" The ethnic shakedown artists who have sued over every slight and hyped every faked claim of a hate crime are America-bashing enablers of the worst sort -- and they are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Once again, such are not representative of the entire Dem Party. And they most definitely are not representative of the Dem politicians/candidates. In order to win an election, you appeal to the people in the middle/the swing voters, not to the far left of your particular party. And again, there are planty of orgs and people out there to counter-balance the beliefs of this group.

4. The Open Borders Lobby. Longtime readers know of my dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's unwillingness to get serious control of our immigration chaos. But if you are unhappy with the lack of progress on securing our land, air and sea ports of entry, it will only get worse under Kerry-Edwards. Groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Council of La Raza, and the Ford Foundation have protested enforcement, detention, deportation, employer sanctions, and secure identification measures every step of the way. It is from these ranks that a Democratic administration will draw upon to staff the Justice Department, Department of Transportation and Department of Homeland Security. Scary.

Oh please. Just like the whole Ted Kennedy as attorney general, this is just plain ludicrious.

5. First Responder Fetishists. In her convention remarks on Monday night, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said the first homeland security priority in response to the 9/11 report was the "need to fully equip and train . . . our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack." Eager to suck up to men and women in uniform, John Kerry has proposed adding 100,000 first responders to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel nationwide. As I have said before, there is no question that our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need increased training and support -- but dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11.

Oh sweet fucking Jesus. Guess what? More first responders is a good thing. Oh, and you know what else? That is just one piece of the Kerry-Edwards homeland security plan. And then there is that whole pesky checks and balances thing too.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Debaser


Corganist, you stupid motherfuck. Nobody addressed the first post because the accusations are worthless and aren't even direct attacks to the democratic party! stupid fucking platitudes.
Oh, so now you're stooping to name calling? Why do you even look at this board if it gets you so worked up? Why do you come into threads like this and continuously try to steer the topic into something you think you can handle as opposed to whats actually being discussed?

I've never been uncivil in any post I've made on this board, and I've especially never resorted to name-calling. I just call BS and diversionary tactics when I see them. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you (and others) are avoiding the point of the thread by dismissing the original post, or talking about something else. If its that easy to dismiss, do it with a modicum of thought put into it, and then be done with it. If you wanna talk about the Republicans, start a new thread, and we'll discuss it there if you can act like a grown-up.

Originally posted by ravenguy2000
A gay Republican? Wait... What?

Originally posted by cowbite
A gay Republican? Wait... What?

I'm a Democrat.

Not that there isn't such a thing as gay Republicans...

Originally posted by Corganist

Oh, so now you're stooping to name calling? Why do you even look at this board if it gets you so worked up? Why do you come into threads like this and continuously try to steer the topic into something you think you can handle as opposed to whats actually being discussed?

I've never been uncivil in any post I've made on this board, and I've especially never resorted to name-calling. I just call BS and diversionary tactics when I see them. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you (and others) are avoiding the point of the thread by dismissing the original post, or talking about something else. If its that easy to dismiss, do it with a modicum of thought put into it, and then be done with it. If you wanna talk about the Republicans, start a new thread, and we'll discuss it there if you can act like a grown-up.

im versatile, bro.

just because you type ad nauseum of bullshit without name calling, doesn't mean you're not dodging issues. My telling you to shut the fuck up in the ann coulter thread had a lot more validity than your overly wordy pile of shit that you wrote which could have just been boiled down to "i say so, so i'm right". if you can't take it anymore, why don't you just pussy out, leave the board and come back as another alias.

Originally posted by Debaser


im versatile, bro.

just because you type ad nauseum of bullshit without name calling, doesn't mean you're not dodging issues. My telling you to shut the fuck up in the ann coulter thread had a lot more validity than your overly wordy pile of shit that you wrote which could have just been boiled down to "i say so, so i'm right". if you can't take it anymore, why don't you just pussy out, leave the board and come back as another alias.

If you think "Shut the fuck up" is a proper response in a civil debate, then more power to you. It doesn't defeat any point I make, and it makes you look petty and mean-spirited. If you think any point I make in one of my "overly wordy" posts is bad, call me on it with something a little more concrete than curse words. You never know, I've been known to come around in the face of convincing evidence. But you're not scoring any points by calling me a motherfuck. Enough about me. Respond to the topic or drop it.

I could think of five reasons to fear the Democrats, but they would all be offshoots of the premise that they carry out Republican policies while giving lipservice to the people they harm.

Tolstoy puts it more eloquently:

"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure
myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by
all possible means--except by getting off his back."

Originally posted by Corganist


If you think "Shut the fuck up" is a proper response in a civil debate, then more power to you. It doesn't defeat any point I make, and it makes you look petty and mean-spirited. If you think any point I make in one of my "overly wordy" posts is bad, call me on it with something a little more concrete than curse words. You never know, I've been known to come around in the face of convincing evidence. But you're not scoring any points by calling me a motherfuck. Enough about me. Respond to the topic or drop it.

if you noticed, i told you to shut the fuck up right after I pointed out how completely wrong you were about USA Today's comments (you ignored what the comments actually said and added you're own meaning of what you thought they meant behind them). but of course you want to focus on cuss words instead of how your point was obliterated.

I did respond to the topic already. And I don't need to repeat others that took down the topic point by point already. I've noticed a couple things in this thread: a) you've began to focus on me and conveniently ignore others who have the valid response you keep asking for. b) all you do is sit on this board and attack democrats but yet when confronted by attacks on republicans you whine that it's off topic or if that is the topic you conveniently ignore it . http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66121

there are quite a few powerful folks in both parties who have insane control over the many.

while i didn't expect it to really happen, i entertained the idea of a kerry-mccain ticket in the sense that it MIGHT possibly end the inflated sense of party ego these people have become accustomed to using instead of thought and reason.

think of how many times we've ALL been screwed by the parties because of egotistic power struggles to keep one side from a victory so your side has the glory? it hurts US.

maybe it was entirely rumor. with the media choices at my disposal, I'll never know for certain, but that the idea seemed possible, I'll vote for Kerry.

6. Lack of cake at said party.