Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My Dad Thinks the Repubs Are Trying to Throw this Election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:24 AM
Original message
My Dad Thinks the Repubs Are Trying to Throw this Election
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:46 AM by Frank Cannon
He thinks that this is why they've chosen McCain to be their running mate, a guy whom half of their own party and most of the rest of the country can't stand. A guy who is old and has serious health problems and anger management issues. A guy who is well-known as an ass-kisser to the worst President in American history.

He thinks that the corporate-owned American media is going to do their absolute 24-7 best to prop up a shitty economy until after January of next year, when the Democratic candidate will be allowed to take office. Then we will be paying $6 a gallon for gasoline and we will finally be hit with the news about economic disaster. We will also then probably be "attacked" by "Iran", which will necessitate quick, decisive, and forceful action that--thanks to the corporate-owned American media--will never be quick, decisive, or forceful enough.

By November of 2012, the Republicans' REAL choice for the White House will win in a landslide. A hard-core neocon PNACker. Think Jeb Bush.

The mantra of that day will be "Thank God, we got a man in the White House who really knows how to run things--who can be strong on terrorism, and who can do what it takes to keep the economy afloat. A man like George W. Bush. He made it look so easy."

The Republicans will then be in the White House for 20 years, at least.

My dad's pretty smart about these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Its funny how the democrats seem to be trying to lose it as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. I agree: They're letting the mass media turn this into a clash of personalities
instead of a discussion about where our troubled nation should go from here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. Yet voters will continue letting the media and money determine who they'll vote for
rather than voting for an individual who would actually be a good president. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. LOL
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. yeah, and if i didn't think the PNAC would finish the job in 4 years
I might like that plan.

Let muckain get credit, like Hoover, for the second Great Depression.
Then we get another FDR.

These two are no FDR.

However, I think they would successfully dismantle the entire government, leaving us with a feudal society of ultra rich and squalor, and no 2012 election to look forward to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Forcing Edwards out so early in the game
is one of the biggest blunders I've ever seen, one of the biggest examples of autocratic tone deafness in the history of politics.

The earliest races were contests of name recognition. The person with the most name recognition thought OF COURSE those votes would all go to that camp.

They didn't.

Now we have two candidates running neck and neck and the race is getting dirty. Both will be badly damaged by the time the convention gets around to nominating one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Agreed. Acting like Edwards was a distant 10th in the race was
really smart of the media -- whatever you say about the media, they know how to sideline or play up anyone and anything, and their motives are corporatist, not progressive. When Obama and Clinton were so obviously glad he was gone no matter how he was gotten rid of, that told me all I needed to know about either of THEM. So, as far as I can see, we are back in the same hole, still digging deeper.

And the remaining dem candidates are now slicing and dicing each other, when they should actually be supporting each other and attacking McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. Media picked the candidates for us.
They have a love/hate relationship for news.

Edwards bowing out before Super Tuesday and the large, liberal states was unacceptable. He'll never get a dime from me ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. Four Words: Rahm Emanuel Terry McAiluffe
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 12:01 PM by devilgrrl
With friends like those two, who needs enemies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. Corporatist in wolf's clothing who made us lose elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. A scary but entirely possible scenario
"Oh what a tangled web we weave" and all that. You also get points just for having ELO on your sig line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. You make a good point
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well. Step up to plate young man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hmmm . . .
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:30 AM by Brigid
Your dad just might be on to something here. Now -- how do we stop them from getting away with it?

K & R because I think everybody needs to ponder this. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dawgman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. My dad thinks the repubs are trying to lose as well
He doesn't got for all the conspiracy stuff that you mentioned. He just thinks that the next ten years or so are going to be very rough and they want to emerge on the other side as the saviors...I can't say that I disagree with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Get off that public education bit
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:39 AM by mac2
If anyone trains mindless clones it's the religious and private schools.

The media propaganda and our government do most the mind alteration.

Even if Republicans are trying to throw the election so they can walk away without blame... or the bank, Democrats won't stop them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dawgman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Wow...
I didn't get what the hell you were trying to say there for a moment. You are commenting on a sig line that I haven't changed in 3+ years because I left here around the time of the last election cycle?

Should I go back to the one I had five years ago?

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." HL Mencken
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. Er, I went to private school
back in the 70s. Our teachers had long hair and wore dashiki shirts and love beads. We only ever addresses them by their first names. Classes were held in barns, church basements, and sometimes even the woods. We were not taught to simply memorize a bunch of facts-we were taught critical thinking skills. If we gave an answer to a question our teachers would almost always follow it up with "and why do you think that is?" or something similar to make us ponder the answer, not just the question. It was a very different way of teaching than the public school method, and it worked; 80% of the students went on to attend ivy league universities and now excel at their professions. They are all LIBERAL in their politics too; in fact, the author of the book "why mommy is a Democrat" (which advertises regularly on DU) is the son of my school's principle.

The only time I ever attended public school was during Junior High. I was bored sick, and I now agree completely with that sig line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. So did my publicly educated friends...mostly professionals
went to good universities,etc. They didn't get a leg up with their family connections either.

Public education in this country is the reason we were a great country. Ideas and technology wasn't an elite thing. That success took all segments of our society not just a few elite. Do you think Bush or Kerry would be where they are if it weren't for their family connections (if a poor kid applied to Yale with average marks he/she would not have been admitted...they were)? It is affirmative action for rich kids.

Hillary is smarter than them and she went to public high school. So did Bill Clinton. They graduated at the top at Yale.

I went to a huge public university with many privately educated students. You had to be in the top 10% in your class to be admitted. The state university rated higher than the private one in that area. As at any university some students were better than others. I wasn't overly impressed with the private "brains". I had to help them in the library to do research papers. Not all private schools can afford or have a library so they had little idea of how to use it.

Just when most communities now have libraries...they are being closed because the government made bad choices. Taxes from other sources have gone away. Especially in Florida. Florida RWers want vouchers to destroy public schools for religious,etc.

Public education suffers since Reagan. They are now using our tax dollars to fund the private ones (which takes away the funding for public ones). The religious schools/churches in my community have expanded and become wealthy indeed.

Most the high impact states of immigration have to teach in 200 different languages. That keeps the classes behind and cost the community a pretty penny. The whole system is in trouble financially.

If parents want to send their children to private schools...fine but don't ask me to pay for them with my tax dollars. Especially religious ones. That is a choice they are allowed to make.

Isn't it interesting that many private schools don't test their students as the public schools? How can anyone compare them as being better or equal? I know their teachers don't make as much. I had a friend who taught in a religious school for a time. Most their teachers are taught at pubic colleges. Their text books are from public sources/authors too. So we pay plenty for the elite to be educated already.

In one of our local public high schools four students in the same class tested 100% on their SATs. They don't compare the national testing scores for college entrance either with private.

Bush wants only private schools...for the elite few (not all smart like him). Are the rest of them supposed to go fight his wars and be slaves? My feeling is if the parents want to send their child to a private school they may be surprised to find out they aren't always better anemically. It depends on the community. Apparently your were at a good one.

Ya...Liberty University, Robert Jones, etc. allow their students to think anything other than Conservatism. If you attend a Mormon university the same.

Sorry but I'm really sick of you private educated "critics" who have no idea of how good or bad public education is today. They believe the propaganda of blaming public schools for societies failures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:50 PM
Original message
How did the education work
I was deeply disappointed with my public education from k-12 as well as college. I didn't feel like I learned much. I learned far far more from having debates and reading books and articles than I did trying to forcibly memorize a bunch of facts that I just forgot in a few weeks anyway.

So does your school or schools like it have a book of tactics it uses to educate? My nieces will start school in a few years and I want them to get a decent education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
50. 28 posts on the subject of bad education?
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:23 AM by mac2
RE: Your nieces. Their parents can decide what is the best education for them.

Yours apparently let you get off.

Hope you at least remembered what your were taught to get past your tests. All the way to college and you didn't learn much? Whose fault is that? At 18 years old you could have gone to a college/university/training school that would have challenged your wonderful mind. Tax payers got ripped off with your education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. This economy is so tanked no one will be able to prop it up, check out this data...
I tagged this one for future reference. Spread it

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...


Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected? The most common hypothesis spelled out in detail in last year's What's The Matter With Kansas? is that cultural issues often override economic considerations. But Bartels proposes a surprising alternative explanation illustrated in the two charts below. The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous.

But now look at the bottom chart. It shows economic performance during election years and it's a mirror image of the top chart: Republicans produce better overall performance, and they produce especially stupendous performance for the well off. Democrats not only produce poor overall performance, they produce disastrous performance for the well off, who actually have negative income growth.

In other words, voters aren't necessarily ignoring economic issues in favor of cultural issues. Rather, Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
45. Read this again earlier this evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. They sure tried to throw it, I'll grant 'em that
But, due to the ineptness of the Dem party... they have failed.

It's almost comical. If it weren't so sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bronxiteforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
9. No disrespect to your Dad but I am sure members of the GOP thought that in 1932
with a paralytic President facing a depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue sky at night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. I don't know........
I have real problems with "By November of 2008, the Republicans' REAL choice for the White House will win in a landslide".....sorry but, after eight years of utter destruction, I refuse to believe that can happen. If I loose my job but read in the paper how rosy the economy is, will I vote against my best interest? I think your dad needs to modify the meds, but then again, this could be one of those "sarcastic" posts, where all the dummies don't get it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. i think you picked up a typo in the OP
I think the scenario is a dem wins in 2008, has a dismal 4 years and nov 2012 Jeb wins...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. You're right. Sorry about that. Fixed it.
Whew. Need coffee. :donut:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue sky at night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. wow.......
I feel better now, thanks for the clarification there.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
13. It would be a smart play for the Repubs.
The collapse will begin before the election but will only deepen in 2009, imo. The next President is gonna have a helluva a tough time and might well get blamed no matter what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
46. And who is going to forget who got us into this shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. The same people who blame 9/11 on Saddam Hussein...
and/or Bill Clinton.

I.e., probably most of the people in your neighborhood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
14. chillingly believable n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. it may possibly be a different "conspiracy"
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:03 AM by ldf
edit, restatement of original post, different angle

my bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. i think you just re-stated the OP...
with a little more color commentary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojavekid Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
21. Your Father is certainly not alone,
Jim Puplava over at Financialsense.com has been saying this pretty regularly on his Sat. Broadcasts in the Big Picture segments;

http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

He has been spot on in his forcasts the past couple years as to where things are headed, and He looks just like MY Father..spooky!

-mojavekid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. I was thinking the same thing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
24. I think that they are trying to hand...
the election over to us, but we won't take it. For how bad McCain is, the infighting between our two candidates is appalling and is doing the Repubs work for them. I have been saying that all along, my only question is just how much damage has Clinton and Obama done to each other? The Repubs are ripe for the taking in Congress as well as the Presidential election, but for whatever reason we can't seem to be able to take advantage. I hope I'm wrong!! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. Bush, Clinton, boosh, Clinton(?), bush(??)....?
If that happens, I'll swear to God I'll move out of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. if that were true, McCain never would have had any money troubles.
I don't buy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
29. A couple points in disagreement
First, if the GOP is trying to pump up the economy until after November they are doing a piss poor job. The economy has sucked for a year and they are only denying it.

Second, don't you think the first two Bushes have pretty much ruined any chance of Jeb running for pResident? I don't think he can win with the 19% hard core W supporters. If he could he would be running now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. I think Jeb was supposed to be the candidate in 2000...
but he had too many personal liabilities in his batshit-crazy family who just couldn't manage to stay out of the news.

By 2012, most people will have forgotten about Columba and her brood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. i disagree...
people will still remember what happened under smirk, and the internet will be there to make sure that columba and the kid's antics and shenanigans are not forgotten.

but- i do believe/agree that the president elected in 2008 will be a one-termer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
31. That's funny in a "yeah...well the Patriots wanted to lose to the Giants" sort of way.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:55 AM by tjwash
And how the repugs said "well this is just Reagans economy we are running on" in the 90's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
37. Same old story keeps repeating itself. Republicans get in and screw
everything up. Democrats get in and do what's necessary to clean up the mess that the republicans caused. In the mean time republicans sit on their big fat hemorrhoidal asses and point their bony shit stained fingers at the totally innocent democrats. The ignorant voters then put back in power the bastards that created the mess in the first place and it repeats itself over and over. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
38. Your dad and I think alike
and I sincerely hope we are both dead wrong, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
40. I think I agree
They did the excact same thing by nominating Bob Dole in '96. The right never liked Dole (he's basicly McCain), and put him in because they knew he would lose (actually, probably any Repub would have lost in '96). They set it up so they would take 2000. The Republican goals this election will only be to make gains in both houses. However, there is one key difference. No Supreme Court Justices retired during Clinton's second term. In the next four years, surely at least one will retire. They don't want to lose the opportunity to put in another conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
43. That's funny
I always had the feeling Kerry was throwing the election. There was so much he could have said about Bush, exposed his lies, exposed the fact he was wired during the debates...
And then when he backed down in Ohio I was sure I was right.
And I am afraid you might be right about Jeb Ack!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
44. I disagree
How do the millions of voters who voted McCain in the primaries find out about this conspiracy w/o spilling the beans?

Also, the media 'picked' Giuliani as the winner from what I recall. McCain wasn't really picked as inevitable the way Hillary was.

And I think if the next dem president explains clearly and consistently how the GOP is responsible for this mess (ignoring energy independence, ignoring the dollar and the trade deficit, deregulating the banking industry) that the public may wise up as to the fact that the next dem president is not responsible. In fact if I were the dem presidential candidate I would make a point now of explaining how it took years of bad leadership to get us into this mess and it will take years of good leadership to get us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Thank you for reasonableness. This thread has me scratching my ass!
Unfuckingbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. And Giuliani is just as, if not more, repulsive than McCain
The entire Republican field this time around was almost laughably bad. McCain probably was the best choice amongst that pathetic lot. Neither McCain nor his supporters needed to be in on a conspiracy to choose him from that group.

I think the real "conspirers" are the party chiefs and the governance boards of the major media corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Ditto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC