Memo to Bernie Sanders supporters

[Cali_Democrat]

If you're going to post an article bashing Hillary Clinton, you might want to do some research on the author and make sure they're not a Rand Paul supporter.

Sure, you might get loads of recs, but at the end of the day you're really not doing Bernie and his campaign any favors.

Carry on!

[NCTraveler]

1. But.

Was his attack on Clinton any good? That is the new standard for some.

Obama, Hillary, Gutierrez, Sierra Club, BLM....

Many are on full attack mode and these are the people they target. One stupid comment by one of this country's leading progressives on immigration reform and public opposition reasearch was done on him by a member here. Dozens of ops, hundreds of post, relentlessly attacking him, all Sanders supporters.

They don't understand how much respect we have for some of the people and institutions they are attacking. Most always frivolously. It is an approach of exclusion. Some have spoken up about it and deserve the credit for doing so.

[villager]

2. Or, you could do more research and find they have strong positions against police violence, against

Netanyahu, are for businesses factoring in climate change expenses, etc.

But that wouldn't fit a Rovian talking point designed to avoid ever responding to OPs, but only bashing the messenger, the poster, etc.

Because -- why risk discussion on a discussion board?

[MADem]

6. You're seriously defending Rand Paul....?

Damn, didn't take but a minute, I guess!!!

There's that thing about a stopped clock, etc.

I'll bet you could find many Republicans (the retired Bill Frist not amongst them) who oppose vivisection--it doesn't mean the rest of their world-view is worth emulating.

[villager]

7. You don't know how to respond to anything actually posted, do you?

Are you for unprovoked police violence? In full support of Netanyahu? Against businesses shouldering responsibility for climate change?

Very well.

[MADem]

23. You're seriously defending Rand Paul?

How many times are you going to deflect before you answer the question?

"Very well," indeed. Either answer the question, or don't.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Everyone knows that.

So one more time--and do reference the remarks of the OP before you reply--if you dare to at all:


"You're seriously defending Rand Paul?"

[Ed Suspicious]

51. You're seriously avoiding the point.

[MADem]

53. I asked the question. Haven't gotten an answer. I can only conclude that the answer is

"I have no respect for sources, anyone who says something I remotely agree with is 'OK' with me..."

That's the only conclusion I can reach absent a retraction of support for this assclown.

You're the one plainly missing "the point." This guy wants Rand Paul elected as POTUS. Of course he'd tout the weakest possible opponent for his beloved. I mean, some things are OBVIOUS. Doesn't take a weatherman, and all that....

See--that's the point. Sorry you're having a tough time getting it.

[daybranch]

75. That poster should be a Hillary adviser

It is amazing how Hillary people avoid talking about issues. For me as a Vietnam Combat Veteran, Hillary's coziness with one of the greatest murderers and traitors of the 20th Century (Henry Kissinger) turns my stomach. The papers have been released and it is clear he sabotaged Johnson's peace process for his own political ascent. After the sabotage and Nixon's election, thousands more died. Hillary fails to recognize that when as some say you lie down with pigs, you get dirty.

[MADem]

110. Who's "avoiding issues?" Go back and read the OP, and ask yourself why you're

pot stirring to no avail, here! The OP is about a weasel who is fronting at being a Bernie supporter, but who, in actual fact, has declared his loyalty to Rand Paul. This OP is NOT about Hillary--so why are you trying to make it so?

Pull the string, begin at the beginning, and see how brilliantly you're being played...!



The issue is that a Paulbot writer named Goodman, who uses phrases like "illegal immigrants" while playing at being a "liberal" cough "Democrat" cough-- is running a little game to troll Sanders' clueless supporters (hoping, no doubt, that he can convert them to Paulbots in the event of a Sanders crash-and-burn)--but instead of saying "Oh, shit--that guy's bona-fides ARE suspicious!" you just HAVE to double down, defend the idiot, and play the "Waaah Smack Hillary!" game! Get your mind OFF Hillary for once--this is about a Rand Paul fox in the Sanders henhouse, not about Hillary.

But hey--perhaps you don't merit a fair warning; why should anyone point out the obvious and assist you in developing a jaundiced eye? Fine--off you go, hop in bed with this Goodman guy. Don't take the advice--cheer him on! He's got his eye on the prize after all--on Rand Paul's behalf!

And it's really weird that I ask "villager" the question twice, and you're the second surrogate to jump in like a rodeo clown waving a distracting hankie, for what reason, I can't discern, while that "villager" person doesn't turn up to respond. Hmm. It was a really simple question. It's one an O'Malley, Webb, or Chaffee supporter might ask. Not everything is All About Hillary--sometimes, it's about curious "supporters" who just might have other agendas....like this Goodman guy.

[840high]

127. You are avoiding issues. I'm quite

familiar with your tactics.

[MADem]

136. The only time you ever speak to me, you are making some sort of accusation, just like that one.

If you wonder why I don't put a lot of stock in your remarks, or care much about what you have to say, that is why.

See, I'm familiar with YOUR tactics. They don't bother me, but like that pretty young singer said all those years ago, that don't impress me much, either!

Here, some travelling music for you:

[840high]

144. Correct. I find we are politically worlds apart.

That's what makes the world interesting. Peace.

[MADem]

145. That's nice. nt

[Cha]

134. Actually you're excellent at being right on point.. thank you.

[MADem]

135. Anytime!

Thank YOU!!!

[Cha]

137. No problem. they can't debate you so they insult you.. kinda like this other OP

was talkin' about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=487647

[MADem]

138. That OP speaks the absolute truth.

Part of the problem is that Sanders' supporters across all social media are heavily infiltrated by Rand Paulbots. They attend his rallies, they cheer him on, but they have no intention of voting for him. They are using him to attack the stronger candidate, and his sincere supporters are being pulled into the vortex, many of them cluelessly and innocently.

[Cha]

139. Of course they're sneaky enough to do that.. It's called "ratfucking" but so sad for them.

It ain't gonna work.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Speaking of "ratfucking" why did you rec these threads, cha?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737025

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461135

[VanillaRhapsody]

148. You don't really know what the term "ratfucking"

..in political parlance means do you?
Something tells me you never watched the movie it came from...

[kfreed]

154. Yes indeed: "when you lie down with pigs"

You get dirty, like so: https://www.academia.edu/9716371/CHAPTER_20_OATH_KEEPERS_NETWORKS_WITH_TEA_PARTY_AND_PATRIOTS

So stop being dirty.

[kfreed]

153. Or you use Bernie to attack Democrats if you're not an actual supporter

Amirite?

[kfreed]

152. Are you FOR white supremacy?

Just wondering what here appeals to you on the Rand/Ron Paul front:
https://www.academia.edu/9716371/CHAPTER_20_OATH_KEEPERS_NETWORKS_WITH_TEA_PARTY_AND_PATRIOTS

[MADem]

3. Goodman is a BAAAAD reference!! Unless one wants to make an "association," that is.

I suppose associating that squirrel-headed assclown with Sanders will somehow encourage the Rand Paul crew to vote for him...or something! Are the RP crew hoping Sanders will pick Squirrelhead Randy as his VP, or something?

Ewwww! The people reccing those kinds of threads might want to go back and unrec while the getting's good...lest anyone be confused about their allegiances!

[Android3.14]

4. Somebody sounds a little tired of defending the indefensible

Loves Keystone Pipeline
Loves TPP
No $15 Minimum wage
Voted for the Iraq War
Loves spying on Americans

You are Sisyphus and Clinton is the stone.

[villager]

5. That's why none of them ever discuss, and why their tactics are increasingly indistinguishable

...from those used by the GOP.

[MADem]

25. Yeah, like the Rand Paul supporter who wrote the laudatory article, mentioned in the OP...??

Your tactics don't have to be "indistinguishable" when so many of your SUPPORTERS are FROM the GOP!!! Like the Rand Paul champion mentioned in the OP....



You stepped right in that....

villager
5. That's why none of them ever discuss, and why their tactics are increasingly indistinguishable
...from those used by the GOP.

[beam me up scottie]

114. How about the Hillary supporter who linked to Stormfront:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=486255

That's why none of them ever discuss, and why their tactics are increasingly indistinguishable
...from those used by the GOP.

Indeed.

[MADem]

116. This isn't "Who Wore It Best" you know....!

This is about the issue raised in the OP.

We could trade one-ups all night.

I'll try to break it down for you one last time:

This is about a PAULBOT....

Fronting like he's a LIBERAL DEM....

Using terms like "illegal immigrants" ....

Playing up to Team Bern, but at the end of the day....

His heart belongs to RANDY.

He wants the weakest possible candidate to run against his "fav." Failing that, he wants to damage the stronger candidate, and pull some of fans away to the PAULBOT side.

Snuggle up to Mr. Paulbot, if you'd like! Anything to WIN on DU!

[beam me up scottie]

117. Wait, didn't you bring up questionable behaviour by supporters first?

If this is a contest you guys just lost.

Linking to stormfront beats everything.

[MADem]

118. You think Mr. Goodman is a Sanders supporter? He's the supporter at issue, here.

He's a Rand Paul supporter, running a con on Sanders supporters.

You're calling out DUers, I'm talking about a guy who wrote an article that is linked in the OP.

This thread isn't about Hillary--it's about Mr. Goodman playing the "Feel the Bern" card while backing that libertarian asswipe.

One more time--anyone who calls 'personas sin papeles' "illegal immigrants" is no Democrat, no liberal, and certainly not supportive of any progressive agenda, no matter how hard he fronts otherwise.

[beam me up scottie]

121. No, I'm calling out hypocrisy.

You wanted the troll who called Hillary a "whore" ts'd and thank dawg they were.

So where is your outrage over linking to a white supremacist hate group?

[MADem]

123. No, you're not. The objection here is to Mr. Goodman. In response, you're calling out DUers. nt

[kfreed]

156. The people known to visit Stormfront are Paulites

"The dark side of the 'Paul Phenomenon":

"Virtually every far-right entity -- neo-Nazis, white supremacists, militias, constitutionalists, Minutemen, nativists, you name it -- that I've been monitoring for the past decade or more is lining up behind Paul. I've checked with other human-rights observers, and they're seeing the same thing. Ron Paul, rather quietly and under the radar, has managed to unite nearly the entire radical right behind him."
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

In case anyone's wondering who Dave Neiwert is and how he knows this, he's contributing writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center's blog, Hatewatch. His private blog is Orcinus

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

[artislife]

67. Like this

[Major Nikon]

106. Results...

On Sat Aug 1, 2015, 06:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Like this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=487143

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Out of line that this brand new poster referring to another DU'er as a sockpuppet with this passive aggressive image. We don't need more of this, especially from new posters.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 1, 2015, 06:46 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Everyone posts in this mud pit at their own risk, IMO. Stop wasting the time of jurors with petty alerts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Thinkingabout]

8. Add the gun control bills voted against.

Complaining about funding for wars after having voted on funding the wars.

[JaneyVee]

11. Guns kill 33,000 people per year.

Bernie voted for that. And Bernie has no detailed climate change plan. Come to think of it, Bernie says a lot of things, but has no detailed plan on anything.

[artislife]

22. And yet one little war can kill so many more!

[JaneyVee]

24. Do the math. That's 33,000 per year, and counting.

Not to mention his double down support of lockheed martin and sandia laboratories, both of which make weapons of mass destruction. Sandia even makes nukes.

[rhett o rick]

130. How sad that that's all you got. H. Clinton turned on Democrats and gave her support to George Bush

and close to a million innocent Iraqi's were killed.

[kfreed]

155. A million innocent Iraqis were killed

Because Ralph Nader Speaking of, here is Ralph Nader on a Neo-Confederate's show (Ron Paul's cohort) :

I'll admit I am responsible for one Nader vote and vow to never allow myself to be manipulated into undermining the Democratic Party. Therefore, I will not be bashing Bernie, nor Hillary, nor Obama on the basis of what is said by opportunists and idiots. I now do my homework and I always consider the source: first rule of critical thinking. If the source is a white supremacist hugging dirtbag, I will not be taking said advice. If said advice is coming from actual white supremacist (the Fraud Pauls for instance)... I will for damn sure not be taking said advice.

You now the drill, "fool me once... fool me twice... I can't get fooled again."

[rhett o rick]

157. Blaming Ralph Nader for the loss of life in Iraq is way absurd. That's taking

scapegoating to a new level. There were lots of things that could have brought about a different outcome in the 2000 election, most of which were illegal. Nader's candidacy was legal and no one was forced to vote for him. But those that voted for him didn't like the Bush / DLC choice. And it looks like we may have a repeat of that again in 2016. The Elite of the Democratic Party won't listen to the grassroots but will try to put their corporate candidate in. They, like Goldman-Sachs stated, don't care if Clinton or Bush get elected, either will be great for corporate America, but will do everything in their power to stamp out a progressive.

Why do people blame Ralph Nader? Because they are looking for a scapegoat. They don't want to admit that they ran the wrong candidate in Gore (just more Clinton politics), and they are ashamed that the Democratic Party rolled over and let the R-cons get away with election fraud.

As far as the Iraq War, the Republicons and Conservative Democrats loved the war. They made hundreds of millions off the war. At one point Clinton said it was a great business opportunity.

It's time for a change from politics as usual in Wash DC and that means no more Clintons or Bushes.

[MADem]

27. Shouldn't vote to FUND those little wars, then--should one?

Or jump into bed with Lockheed - Martin after previously excoriating them, just to get a few military-industrial perks for a dairy and farming state...?

[artislife]

32. Scramble!

And then there is Libya.....

[beam me up scottie]

93. Bernie voted for gun control and has been given an F rating by the NRA

But you knew that.

You can keep spinning, Janey, but you can't run away from Hillary's record on the Iraq war and equal rights.

[MADem]

15. Loves TPP? Prove it. Post that declarative statement!

-Loves Lockheed Martin when he used to hate them (cough pork).
-Loves the worst military aircraft ever made in the history of military aircraft, save maybe the Spruce Goose.
-Loves Sandia Labs.
-Voted safely against the Iraq War because he knew his vote would not matter as one of 435, but voted to fund the Iraq War, over and over and over again.
-Never attended an intelligence briefing or asked for a one-on-one brief.
-Has a "minority problem" and a group of supporters who would rather insult the "minorities" than address the "problem."
-He (and his supporters, especially) are even losing the Counterpunch set.

I won't end with the usual "Personal 'you are...' insult directed at the poster designed to denigrate them for their POV." That would be childish.

[HFRN]

64. Loves H-1b guest worker visas and tech outsourcing, too

[LWolf]

151. +1

[BooScout]

9. LOL

K&R

[Godhumor]

10. Yeah, this went to a jury, amazingly

Glad common sense prevailed.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Aug 1, 2015, 02:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Memo to Bernie Sanders supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251486827

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Flamebait -- belongs in the thread referenced, if anywhere, but as an OP is only designed to provoke....

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 1, 2015, 02:30 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I really don't see anything objectionable about the post. Let it go
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I like Villager but the op makes z good point and thix should not be hidden. If you tjink it is meta you can send an sop alert.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Its just such a bad post. It's a childish taunt on top of petty, fallacious argument. And to top it off, it's not even an argument over anything real, but rather over an abstraction (a label). The post contributes nothing to the discussion, other than disruption.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Facts are not flame bait. Opinion can be, as well as information cited without proof. Poster wants Sanders to control his message of the good of his campaign and the party he is using to run for office.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the very definition of trying for a loaded jury, especially in GD. I really hope this gets left with a 7-0 vote.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: 'flamebait' is not a problem. This is a reasonable OP; replies #2 and #5 (both from the same DUer) might be hideable. however. If anyone wants to give villager a heads up to edit before they get alerted on ...
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We're adults, right?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BooScout]

16. Nothing ceases to amaze me around here anymore....

Somedays this place is like Mayberry with Barney Fife running amok hollering "CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST!".

[George II]

17. Amazing that the one "hide" threw in an opinion on the topic, too....neutral? Nah!

[MADem]

19. Hmmmm. Ain't that peculiar...not!

One of the jurors ought to ask the admins to have a look at that rather hypersensitive alerter.

That seems like frivolity in the EXTREME. Don't talk about the source of an article posted on DU! I don't LIKE it!!!!

And what's with Number Three? "It's just such a bad post." Why? Because it doesn't ass kiss Sanders? Because it notes that at least some of his support comes from those ICKY awful racist Paulbots? "It's a childish taunt on top of being petty..." Facts are childish taunts now? And, irony of ironies, let's not forget that the Bernie Brigade is doing that kind of shit, and even worse, to include using HRC's husband's record from over two decades ago, incessantly (while crying that no one can talk about Bernie's wife's misdeeds, even though she has served in an official, named capacity as his "Rahm Emmanuel"--chief of staff/political advisor-- since he reported to Congress)! And of course, the big finish is the old "contributes nothing to the discussion" canard (which can be translated as "Waaah--they are saying stuff about my FAVORITE that casts him in an unfavorable light!!&quot .

Talk about a brilliant illustration of the old "Dish it out but can't take it" saw.

[TheKentuckian]

119. That was a terrible rationale for a hide vote. Not liking a post is not a reason to hide folks.

That is bully stalker baby games.

I suspect retaliation the fruit of frustration with the original alert stalker gang assholes and that I understand but it still isn't right to act like them.

[MADem]

122. Were that the case I'd be voting HIDE on most every jury I get!

I have to vote LEAVE on a lot of posts where I don't like the content. And that's fine--that's the way we should be playing it.

If there's no personal insults or wingnuttery present, then appealing to me, personally, is not a criterion. The right thing to do is leave it.

[TheKentuckian]

150. I'm agreeing for once, I responded to your post to echo it.

[zappaman]

31. You should send this to the admins.

Juror #3 is concerned.

[winter is coming]

12. I guess we can't all live up to your high standards. n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Thank you for your concern.

[HassleCat]

14. Better yet

If you're thinking of posting something bashing Hillary Clinton, don't post it. I like Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I dislike Clinton.

[MADem]

21. That's very good advice, I think.

I like Sanders just fine--he's simply not my first choice for the Presidency.

I think he does a good job for the people of VT in the Senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. +1. n/t

[marble falls]

71. By supporting Keystone, fracking, mandatory sentencing, three strike laws, taking money from CCA,...

pushing TPP, backing further adventure in Afghanistan - which voters is Hillary Clinton doing a good job for?

If she would at least explain her principled stand on these issues it will make it easier when I vote for her if Sanders or Biden doesn't get the nod.

[nxylas]

48. Yes, Bernie himself has never attacked Clinton

He prefers to promote his own positions rather than defining himself against Hillary. In fact, he has had some harsh words for journalists who have tried to sidetrack him into an intra-party flame war. Shame that a few of his supporters don't seem to see the wisdom of this approach.

[passiveporcupine]

62. skim through this thread

and tell me Hillary supporters never bash Bernie. If you call talking about things you don't approve of about a candidate "bashing".

[nxylas]

95. Oh, I know they do

But constantly harping on Clinton's Wall Street ties and Iraq War vote has the effect of reducing Bernie to a supporting role in The Hillary Clinton Story instead of being the star of his own show - something that he has fought hard to avoid. Bernie has a great message, he's not just some stalking horse whose only distinguishing feature is that he's Not Hillary Clinton.

[MisterP]

18. did or did she not back "getting tough" and welfare "reform" and other 90s racial horrors?

is or is not CCA a major donor?
is or is it not true that the campaigners and fans are distracting from a lack of progressiveness in many, many key sectors by trying to play ethnic and gender cards? and then saying that complaints about such crude and Orwell-level-inaccurate division are only proof that they have to play those cards?
is or is it not true that much of what the defenders link is written by very conservative people deep down inside (no matter how much they squall about the GOP?)

[artislife]

20. Memo to H supporters

We have minds of our own.


You do not get to control the narrative of what we have concerns about or not.

And how much do you care about Bernie and his campaign?






We can feel your emotions.....they are gentle, dewy tears of concern for out campaign..

We will find you some hankies.

[Bobbie Jo]

26. "we"

Are you today's appointed spokesman, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[artislife]

28. That is such a strange reply...

[Bobbie Jo]

33. Is it?

I thought yours was as well.

Strange, that is...

[artislife]

34. Very weird. And very strange.

[Bobbie Jo]

37. Yeah, you said that already.

Oh, btw.... Welcome to DU.

[freshwest]

54. I remember the 'is that a mouse in your pocket' retort to a singular claiming to be a plural.

It's less condescending than using 'The Royal We.' And usually causes one to bristle when it's used. It's speaking for others which one has no right to.

Another version: 'Whoa, what's this 'we' bullshit? Who is 'we'? Got a mouse in your pocket? Talk for yourself dude, I don't think that way.'

Not sure if that's from a movie or a television program, but it's a classic reply.

Almost as old as the classic 'Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?' IIRC, that was Lauren Bacall's reply to Humphrey Bogart. And I think it was a gun. Didn't they have an affair or get married IRL, too?

[Bobbie Jo]

63. Yes!

I guess I thought most people were familiar with these idioms.

A reply to a person who has used the word "we". The person making the reply is telling the speaker no one is effected by their statement other than them. Or, in an organization (work or volunteer positions), someone has just said that "we" all need to do something. This reply means that it's agreed the work needs to be done, but the speaker is the only one who must do it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=You+got+a+mouse+in+your+pocket%3F

[MADem]

35. Is "we" you and

"that Goodman guy" cited in the OP?

I'd say you really DO have something to cry about!

The emotions you are feeling--based on the sheer amount of "emoticon button punching" (36 pounds of the keyboard, there!) you had to do to create that massively lovely tableau of angst and agita--are likely coming from within! Keep those "hankies" close now--I think you might need them....!

[artislife]

36. Silly people

I guess you didn't get the tone of we, the hillarians demand that you only use sources we deem acceptable memo of the initial OP.


I say....you're not the boss of us. (In the best Jon Stewart voice)

[MADem]

43. Rand Paul supporters are an "acceptable source" to you? Reeeaaaaallllly?

You can associate with whomever you'd like.

Confession is good for the soul--you like this Paulbot? Say it loud! Knock yourself out!

Just know that you're not doing yourself any favors by associating yourself with his remarks!

You are ostensibly new here, so maybe you don't know that DU does look askance at the proclamations of wingnuts or wingnut supporters. It's in DU's DNA to so do.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Now, if you want to disregard that, fine, but do realize you'll be known by the sources you tout. And that source? He's a PAULBOT. And trying to inferentially associate your views with those of Jon Stewart? That's a major FAIL, too!

[freshwest]

80. OMGawd!!!! In addition to the obvious RWNJ dog whistles...

Take America back! How very Glenn Beck of him!

From women, minorities and those nasty emigrants, yup, that's really a liberal position, gonna go over big with Democrats.

And as far as Bernie's position on organized labor (unions) and the middle class the unions created:

Senator Rand Paul Submits A National Right To Work Bill

The battle over Right To Work States just took a monumental leap as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduces a National Right to Work (for less) Act...

This is an ideological and blatantly  anti-union piece of legislation.  It has no benefit to our nation as a whole.  It will reduce the collective bargaining rights of millions of union workers and it turn will reduce the pay and benefits of the other 200 million workers in the US.
The national race to bottom has begun, soon Rand Paul will probably try to repeal all collective bargaining in the country!

...Is it any surprise that the National Right To Work committee made a nice donation to the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Does it surprise you that the National RTW Committee spent over $2.2 Million dollars ‘lobbying’ in Washington D.C.?  I am not surprised considering that there were no less than five Right To Work for less bills submitted in the 112 Congress...

http://nhlabornews.com/2013/02/senator-rand-paul-submits-a-national-right-to-work-bill/

Obama had to veto the Keystone stunt that the Koch brothers have demanded since 2009, but Rand had it on the front burner:

Rand Paul: GOP Senate will pass Keystone, address 400 stalled bills

By Paul Bedard • 10/20/14

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has spent months on the road promoting Republican candidates in 32 states, said the GOP is poised to take control of the Senate in the November election and immediately approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, address corporate taxes and reform prison laws.

“I’d be surprised if we don’t win the majority,” he told Secrets. “I think the wind is at our back, the president is increasingly unpopular,” said Paul, adding that there are some Democrats who "would probably run the other way if [President Obama] came to their state.”

Paul, who is mulling a 2016 presidential bid, is so confident of picking up the needed six Senate seats that he has already met with fellow Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s minority leader, to discuss what the new majority would do starting in January.

“We pass legislation,” he said. “I’ve talked with Sen. McConnell about this, he’s intent on passing legislation.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-gop-senate-will-pass-keystone-address-400-stalled-bills/article/2555012

Isn't he just too precious for words?

Now onto his stance on choice, or rather no choice at all:

Sen. Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion

By Eric W. Dolan - 17 Mar 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.

The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.

“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Paul said in a statement. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”

In a fundraising video for the National Pro-Life Alliance last year, the Republican senator explained that the bill would outlaw abortion without contradicting the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Citing the ruling, Paul claimed Congress had the power to define when human life began under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

“The Court then admitted that if the personhood of an unborn baby is established, the right to abort ‘collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14] Amendment,'” he said...

http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/

It has been rejected by several states, but Rand has tried to push it through since 2012. He keeps on bringing it up. The O'Keefing of the PP in and edited video is part of the continuing assault on women's rights. It's not wonder that Hucklebee is empowered to call for the army to arrest all women that have had abortions legally after they make it illegal. That's retroactive punishment. With a GOP White House, HoR and Senate, this must may come to pass and with the data base that doctors have on patients, they just might come to the door. Freedom and liberty, huh?

More like RWNJ terrorism. There is a reason as many as can are moving out of the USA in fear of these people. This is not Bernie's stance on this issue. So who will support Rand?

I suggest only forced birth white males who believe women have no right to control their bodies.

Oh, and his stance on same-sex marriage. Is that Bernie's stance?

Rand Paul: "Humans Will Marry Non Humans Without DOMA"

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) on Wednesday worried the defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act could lead to the legalization of human-animal marriages.

“I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this,” Paul said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning. “But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? You know, I mean. So there really are — the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation?”

“Historically, we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it,” the Kentucky Republican continued. “Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”

Paul had previously said he opposed DOMA, a federal law that prohibited same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and protections. However, he only opposed the law because it potentially gave the Supreme Court an opening to legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage-conundrum-leads-to-marrying-animals/

After the USSC found same sex marriage Constitutional, he fed red meat to RWNJs:

Rand Paul Questions Government's Role in Marriage After Supreme Court Decision

Jun 29, 2015

“...While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract,” the Kentucky senator said in a Time op-ed published Sunday titled “Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether.”

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” he continued. “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party...”

“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals,” he said. “This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.”

Paul's silence in the day following the Supreme Court decision drew attention. His approach stood in contrast to those of many competitors and “to his voluble response on Thursday, when the justices upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act,” Politico wrote, and “fits the pattern” set when he initially remained quiet about 2012 nominee Mitt Romney's call to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina state capitol grounds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-29/rand-paul-questions-government-s-role-in-marriage-after-supreme-court-decision

That's it, Rand. Take your little red marriage wagon and go home since the 14th Amendment allows Equal Protection Under the Law. Oh, that terrible, nasty US Constitution...

There are so many examples of how Libertarians are the exact opposite of Democrats and Bernie. Like oil and water...

[beam me up scottie]

85. HC supporters linking to rw websites and posting articles from banned disruptors:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=467956

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461135

[L0oniX]

104. That one has a link to a well known republican site which is at the least is a hidable offense.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Yep and they doubled down when called on it.

They tried to excuse their behaviour by claiming they're "just sayin".

Like I said I won't post links to articles on Hillary from that site in retaliation because I have to live with myself after the primaries are over.

[L0oniX]

108. The admins should do something about that one. My bet is that they won't.

[beam me up scottie]

109. skinner said: "We Hillary supporters need to be better than everyone else."

Apparently some of them didn't get the memo.

[L0oniX]

111. That'll be the day.

[MADem]

120. Who is "that one?"

If you are accusing me of linking to right wing sites, you'd better be able to prove it.

Tick tock...!

[beam me up scottie]

124. Maybe you should check the link before making demands.

Otherwise you look pretty foolish.

[MADem]

125. No--the collars and cuffs aren't matching, here.

There's more than one "that one" if we're talking about links posted here in this thread. The term would be "those ones."

I want clarification and you're not the one to provide it.

So, unless you want to appear like you're "foolishly" (your word) running interference, you should consider stepping back and cease with the pot-stirring behavior.

[beam me up scottie]

126. I posted two links, if they're not to your posts move on.

The poster you are responding to was discussing my links, not anyone else's.

[MADem]

143. You can't answer my question--it wasn't directed at you, yet you inserted yourself in the subthread.

I want "loonix" to tell me who "that one" is. That's who I asked, not you.

Tick tock--still no answer.

[Sancho]

149. ...and of course, this post is "out of context"

If a link to a RW source is an example of what would happen when Bernie faces a GOP attack in a general election, but not an OP then it's not an example as you seem to imply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=469377

152. Just saying. Bernie has not faced a well-funded GOP attack.

The "bash and trash" is easy against Hillary on DU. All you have to do is dig up the repub memes and link to an army of investigators who do the work for you. Post away!

I don't hate Bernie, but he has plenty of weaknesses. In a general election you would see lots of ads like this one. I don't have to believe it or not. Who would see this ad and recognize Tucker Carlson, or anyone else?

The question is whether a bunch of naive independents or unaware voters would be bombarded in their mailboxes, on TV, on the radio, and on the internet. We certainly see it in Florida. Rick Scott spend 70 million of his own money in the last run for governor. Mail every day, ads on every channel. Bernie doesn't have a budget, and you can't reach the populace when facing that onslaught.

[ismnotwasm]

49. We tend to not like right wing sources

You are welcome to embrace what you like, but of course!

[artislife]

66. Not looking for your permission.

[ismnotwasm]

115. Not giving you any

[beam me up scottie]

86. Except you do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=487286

[BooScout]

44. Alrighty then...

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Y.A.W.FUCKING.N.

[murielm99]

30. Right wing sources were always

pointed out here in the past. When people posted from them, it was an oversight. They usually apologized and removed them, or said they would take more care in the future. We have NEVER accepted right-wing sources, even at the height of silly season. Don't fall for it now!

It is a new thing here that they are being defended. Don't fall for it. This is the Democratic Underground. If you want to use those sources, turn right and find that other website.

Otherwise, what will be next? World Net Daily? Fox News?

[Bobbie Jo]

38. So many new posters lately

Perhaps a friendly reminder is in order.

Then again, some of it is coming from those who should know better too.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Except when Hillary supporters use them and then it gets a pass:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=467956

What will be next?

Ask your fellow Hillary supporters.

[SoapBox]

39. I wouldn't be able to say that she had nice shoes...

And I would be accused of bashing her.

We, as Bernie supporters, are always told that we are bashing her for even raising fact and history.

Then we are told to do the March of the Zombies and blindly vote for her.

I will not be told to sit down and be quiet.

I will not be told to blindly cast my vote for her.

Don't tell me what to do.

[ismnotwasm]

42. Okey dokey

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. At least she is an actual Democrat...not a pseudo one....

that's bonus in my book...not sure how it plays in yours...

[Android3.14]

113. I applaud your naivete

[ismnotwasm]

40. !!!!

[Fearless]

41. An ad homenium response.

[MADem]

45. Check the TOS. nt

[Fearless]

47. What about the Terms of Service?

[MADem]

52. The salient excerpt is at post 43. A full read of the TOS is always a good idea, every so often. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

74. lame

[MADem]

82. The TOS is lame, huh? I don't think so. nt

[Fearless]

140. I know the Terms of Service well

Are you applying them in reference to my post or the OP?

[MADem]

142. I am applying them to those who would use Mr. "I Support Rand Paul" Goodman as a source, here.

Particularly without caveat.

It's perfectly fine to link to an author like that to say "Look what this idiot is saying," but that's not what is happening here. This guy supports Rand Paul but he rallies the Bernie base, not to help Sanders, but to motivate them to attack a stronger Democratic opponent in the hopes that it will benefit his candidate.

[Fearless]

146. Hillary is a weak opponent.

However my original point stands. Ad homenium attack.

[MADem]

147. No, it's a TOS violation to use wingnutty sources here at DU. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

46. That was a pretty stupid thing to post

and I didn't care enough about it to check on the author or the accuracy.

The entire premise seemed a bit stretched to me anyways.

[cyberswede]

50. DU has literally zero influence on Bernie's campaign.

Or anyone else's.

...you're really not doing Bernie and his campaign any favors.

[MADem]

56. But people who support Rand Paul 2016 apparently do! nt

[cyberswede]

61. Huh?

People who support Rand Paul have influence on Bernies's campaign? In what respect, Charlie?

[MADem]

69. Read the OP. Click on the links. That's what this thread is about. nt

[cyberswede]

89. I read the OP. I even quoted it.

My point is, it doesn't really matter what a bunch of DUers post about - nothing posted here has any effect whatsoever anywhere else, besides DU. Especially with regard to a national campaign.

[MADem]

90. It does matter what a Paulbot fronting like he cares about Sanders posts in HUFFPO, though. nt

[beam me up scottie]

88. And Hillary supporters on DU link to rw websites and post articles from banned disruptors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=467956

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461135

When it comes to right wing hit pieces on Bernie you guys are the champs.

[MADem]

91. You should start an OP on that topic!

Then we can have a fair discussion about Jane Sanders' involvement with the ruin of Burlington College, without all those ugly and unfair right wing fraud accusations.

You know, since spouses are fair game, even more so spouses who have official roles in their other half's offices as "Chief of Staff" and "Political Advisor" as well as a leadership role within the campaign, complete with a corner office!

Never ascribe to deviousness and mendacity what one can put down to simple fiscal incompetence, I always say!!!

[freshwest]

96. 'Never ascribe to deviousness and mendacity' unless it's a GOP/Koch/Libertarian. It's their policy!

I've found out 'Something Awful' about the corrupt connections between NGO's who play being in favor of the evirnonment, the disabled, the poor, education, the social safety net and workers by the alleged 'liberal groups.'

I'm talking about how they work to steal the Commons and profit their friends, and tell the people they claim to be advocating for their dreams of utopia what they will do for them. But they have mega corporations working with them behind the scenes. When the real estate assets or money changes hands and people are hurt, suddenly the former liberal icons are NOWHERE to be seen. They just made their fortune or their retirement for selling out.

No one who doesn't have the eyes and ears and the will to trace them out, understands what the hell happened. They destroy the hard work of generations of progressives and the democratic process. And people are left out in the cold with no redress.

It'd make you puke your guts out.

[beam me up scottie]

98. What makes me "puke my guts out" is swift boating good Dem candidates on DU.

ymmv

[MADem]

105. Something awful? Do tell!

These people are into that kind of thing up to their asses....they generally lean towards more obviously wingnut enterprises though.

[freshwest]

112. There used to be a joke webstie named that. But it sure seems they have the game down.

But I ram talking about the fraud being committed by 'liberals' who steal from the Commons udner that cover and never show up again after they get the money. You might be surprised at some of the linkages to groups one may have thought were altruistic. They may have simply given up and went to the dark side when offered enough money to abandon their former purpose.

[saidsimplesimon]

55. Cali, Mrs. Clinton is her own worst enemy.

If she wants my support, she must ignore the polls and come out as her own person. This is not the season for scripted candidates of any political flavor.

I do agree that some republicans and most libertarians are Koch funded and never to be trusted, period, not now, not ever.

[L0oniX]

57. The complaint department is on the 13th floor.

[AtomicKitten]

99. It was moved downstairs.

[passiveporcupine]

58. H. A. Goodman may be a Rand Paul supporter

but he seems to be switching to Bernie now. However, in this Salon piece, he refers to an article by Bill Curry, who is a democrat, not a Rand Paul supporter; and he is the one who brought up this issue of Hillary having a white liberal problem. Goodman is just revisiting Bill Curry's comments, which you can read here:

The Trap Hillary Can't Escape

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/19/the_trap_hillary_cant_escape_her_bernie_sanders_problem_is_she_doesnt_understand_sanders_policies_are_popular_mainstream_and_the_future/

[MADem]

70. No--he wants the race to be Sanders v. Paul, because he thinks Paul can win against Sanders.

Good grief, some things are just so doggone self-evident.

There is no pony under Goodman's pile....

[passiveporcupine]

72. I'm not defending Goodman here

I'm just stating where that part of his comments originated from. That the real source of the title of the OP was from a dem, not a Rand Paul supporter.

[MADem]

81. Goodman is a "liberal Dem" who supports Rand Paul for the Presidency. He wrote an article declaring

this--that link is the SECOND LINK in the OP. He's a "liberal Dem" like I'm the Emperor of Massachusetts!

He's a lying fronter looking for an AUDIENCE of "liberal Dems" IMO, and playing the wedge game to Divide and Conquer. It's absolutely in his interest, assuming he can find some way to make Squirrelhead win the GOP nomination, to have Sanders as an opponent instead of Clinton. If he can't make that happen, his hope is to damage Clinton with themes that disappointed Sanders acolytes will take with them when they wander off to support Jill Stein, or join Team Rand if they're not too politically astute in the first place.

Dandy Randy has sufficient intersection with Sanders to be "better" (cough/choke) than him on some key (often isolationist) issues. This guy thinks that by FUDding the people who have convergence on issues that Paul and Sanders share, that he can break off the Sanders supporters for his guy. He's sowing seeds here. Not even subtly.

That link has this headline, specifically: I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

....I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.

Who in hell--save libertarians and Republicans--even USES the loaded and debasing term "illegal immigrants" anymore? Certainly not "liberal democrats." That's a dog whistle. Undocumented workers, or undocumented immigrants is the appropriate term, as people are not, in and of themselves, "illegal."

And WTF is wrong with "succumbing to public opinion?" Marriage equality wouldn't be the law of the land if the Supremes didn't "succumb" to public opinion. Why is this assclown making "public opinion" a BAD thing? He wants the Squirrel on Rand Paul's head to make the decisions, and ignore the wishes of the American people?

This guy is a TOOL. If you take the time to look, you see he's a crudely-fashioned blunt instrument, at that. He's not even clever enough to be too clever by half.

You've got to consider the source, realize that this guy put it all out there, and take bullshit propaganda/FUD like this with a grain of salt. This guy has a stated agenda. It looks, pardon the expression, "squirrelly" to be associated with it in any way.

[passiveporcupine]

83. Why are you addressing this to me?

I am not supporting Goodman. I already said that. I was simply pointing out the true source of the title of the OP that so many have issue with. The dem I was referring to was Bill Curry, not Goodman. I am wondering if you are so angry you can't even read and understand what I write?

[MADem]

87. The OP says "Memo to Bernie Supporters" and it references this post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251484778 That very title is the FIRST link in the OP.

which is a piece of FUD written by Mister "Illegal Immigrant" who hates "succumbing to national opinion" Goodman.

Maybe you aren't making yourself clear, and that's why I'm having trouble. This thread is about a libertarian named Goodman who is fronting like he's a "liberal Democrat" but who commonly uses buzzwords and attitudes that actual "liberal Democrats" would not touch with a forty foot pole.

I am addressing this to you because (pull the string, now) you made the assertion in post fifty eight that Goodman "may be switching to Bernie now." I don't think he's doing that, and I don't think he's a "liberal Democrat" either, because they don't use the verbiage he uses. It's like someone with a bad accent--you can tell when they aren't what they're playing at being.

[passiveporcupine]

92. Sorry, I didn't realize I was referring to the LINK to the Goodman article

Got lost from opening too many links

When responding to the OP, which was about Goodman's article, I was responding to the title of Goodman's article, which is partly (maybe mostly) what I think the OP was complaining about.

It's Goodman's piece I was referring to, when saying that title really comes from Bill Curry's original opinion piece. Goodman covered a lot of issues in his piece but for some reason his opinion piece got titled after Curry's piece.

I know nothing about Goodman, nor do I care about him. I googled his name and saw things that show him supporting Bernie...thus my statement that maybe he's switching his allegiance to Bernie now. YMMV.

I don't give a damn who he supports. I was merely trying to clear up that the concept of Hillary have a white liberal problem comes from Curry first and he is a dem. So trying to jump all over this idea as if it came from a Rand Paul supporter and thus invalidated, is a bit wrongheaded.

[MADem]

94. Well, that would perhaps suggest that Goodman (who is the subject of the thread) is a plagiarist,

as well!! Either that, or he has a headline-writing editor at HUFFPO who isn't doing him any favors!

All the more reason to look askance at the guy!

[bluedigger]

60. But you are okay with Rand Paul when he attacks Bernie, right?

You didn't have any trouble with Libertarian talking points in this OP. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=484971

[840high]

133. Good find.

[V0ltairesGh0st]

65. There is no need....

for any Sanders supporter to bash ANY other candidate. Bernie himself does not do this, neither should any of us who truly share his values.

[marble falls]

68. I found this,

[beam me up scottie]

73. Memo to Hillary supporters: Posting a hit piece from a banned disruptor isn't smart or cool:

If you're going to post an article bashing Bernie Sanders, you might want to do some research on the author and make sure they're not a previously banned disruptor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461135

Sure, you might get loads or recs, but at the end of the day you're really not doing Hillary and her campaign any favors.

Carry on!

[artislife]

76. It is only a one way memo stream!

Kind of like living with your parents.

heh

[beam me up scottie]

77. Nothing like a lethal dose of hypocrisy to go with the daily poutrage.

Not Good Enough Bernie --->

[L0oniX]

101. Unfortunately that one isn't banned ...yet.

[beam me up scottie]

103. They were one hide away from a vacation after that second thread.

Don't get your post hidden because of them, L0onix.

It's enough to know people will keep seeing those threads and realizing just how low some HC supporters are willing to go.

[artislife]

78. Hark! Sanders supporters

Someone is talking.

Someone from the Hillary supporters has some sage advice for us.

Hark!!

Don't try to imagine why they send forth sage and timely advice.

No, don't think for yourselves, that is frowned upon.

Hark!!

[840high]

128. My legs are trembling or

maybe tingling.

[artislife]

131. Heh! nt

[Ed Suspicious]

79. You're hurting your candidate's chances says the Hillary supporter to the Bernie supporter.

Give me a fucking break.

[L0oniX]

100. They think that the real progressives don't know we'll be thrown under the bus again.

Let em try to win the GE without us.

[Agschmid]

102. Not all of us have gone off the rails completely...

[rhett o rick]

129. I am sure you don't even recognize how silly that is. If Rand Paul says

the H. Clinton gets cash from Goldman-Sachs for her personal fortune, am I wrong for saying the same thing.

Just like conservatives, some want to censor what we say. If I want to say that H. Clinton in 2002 gave up her integrity to Georgie Bush and the result was approx a million deaths of innocent Iraqi people, I DON'T CARE IF RAND PAUL MIGHT HAVE ALSO SAID THE SAME.

[840high]

132. ...^ that