Free Republic

DU doesn't have free speech; it says on the terms and conditions they won't tolerate any conservatives there.

This is the part Freepers keep getting confused about. DU is for Dems only. It is not a forum; it is a place for Dems to share thoughts that otherwise would never get discussed (since the media won't address them). At DU, they do not CARE what conservatives think or have to say. They are NOT interested (any longer) in coming to compromises with conservatives and they are NOT going to debate any issues with them any more. All that is pointless. It never accomplishes a thing.

Truth is, though conservatives have yet to fully realize it, Democrats have crossed over a line. They are angrier than they have been since the 60s and they have no tolerance or patience with conservatives anymore.

IOW, now BOTH sides believe that the only way to deal with the other side is to completely crush them.

Once again, please notice that it is LIBERALS (Corzine, Obey, Daschle, Cantwell, Wellstone, etc.) who are standing up for your Constitutional rights, while it is CONSERVATIVES (Bush, Ashcroft, Lott, DeLay, etc.) who want to take them away. The only conservative mentioned in this piece isn't even a Congressman. The reason for that is that very few conservatives dare speak out against a Bush proposal, and also because very, very few conservatives have any real trouble with the idea of an all-powerful government with its own secret police. In fact, that's just fine with them -- it's exactly what they want -- so long as only they get to be in charge.

If you like peace and freedom, you better hang around with people who will stand up to defend them. Which is liberals.

There goes the so-called "liberal" media again -- proving through their actions that what they really are is money-worshipping conservatives.

Without formatting, it's real hard to see where you blame Clinton for why the Arab world hates us. But I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

Many employees were compelled to take time off from intelligence work to join collective workshops to make colorful, vibrant “diversity quilts.”

I excerpt this as a typical example of the kind of lying right-wingers do these days as a matter of lifestyle.

No one will ever prove the above charge, and I will bet a thousand dollars that it isn't true. It's just more lies from the wing-nut faction in yet another attempt to blame Clinton for something he didn't do.

At no point in this article did this Waller (in mud?) guy make any connection between Clinton and the "sensitivity training" he is complaining about. But that doesn't stop him from blaming Clinton anyway.

If a right-winger were writing a headline for a volcano eruption, he would probably work Clinton into it somehow. Then, months later, we'd find out that no volcano had actually erupted in the first place -- that the eruption had been "imagined" by someone from a slime sheet like INSIGHT as a new way to falsely accuse Clinton of something.

As aggressive and unscrupulous as they are, right-wingers would be even more dangerous to liberty and freedom if anything they said ever turned out to actually be true.

Golly, you seem to be a freeper who is returning, a little, to reality. Reality being that Clinton is not Satan incarnate and that he did not do the many foul things he has been accused of.

Real freepers believe that Clinton is automatically guilty of whatever anybody dreams up to charge him with -- and they always will believe him guilty of all those charges -- all the way to their graves -- no matter how much evidence accumulates to prove them dead wrong.

This missle technology charge is yet another manufactured scandal. It's just something to holler names at Clinton over.

The REAL scandal with China happened under Reagan-Bush, when the ChiComs "somehow" acquired our w-88 missle technology. Nothing that China got under Clinton would do them a BIT of good if they hadn't gotten so much MORE from Reagan.

Sheesh, the media won't tell us how badly Gore beat Bush in Florida because it would undermine the president's "legitimacy." And the Census Bureau doesn't want to tell people what the census count is because they don't like what the numbers say.

Free press?

Open, accountable government?

In a pig's eye.

Hey, what's a little plagarism in the grand cause of chasing Clinton's dingus?

No one should be surprised if Ann turns out to be a little dishonest. I once heard her admit -- boast, even -- on national television that she had often lied to the FBI when they asked her about people she knew. She laughed this off, since she knows that lying to the FBI is no big deal when you're a conservative. Nothing will happen to you.

Oh, but imagine the uproar if Molly Ivins ever bragged about lying to the FBI on national televison. What a Freepfest that would be.

Check the record and you'll see that Clinton tried, time and again, to get Congress to pay attention to this issue --to pass necessary legislation and fund appropriate countermeasures, but GOP leaders pooh-poohed him. Hatch said he was trying to scare people, and conservative commentators said he was just trying to move attention away from his "crimes." As to the CIA and FBI, Clinton was probably lucky if the CIA ever gave him the truth. They hate him, remember? They're almost all conservatives -- Poppy's boys -- who had no interest in helping Clinton look good. In fact, they went out of his way to make him look bad, even when it harmed the country's reputation. Remember the Chinese embassy and the aspirin factory? Those were the CIA's calls, not Clinton's. He was just acting -- pretty boldly -- on crappy intelligence.

As to the FBI, we all now know that the only thing on Louie Freeh's mind for the last ten years has been covering up screw-ups and currying favor with the DC punditocracy by illegally leaking any information he came across that made Clinton look bad. And, of course, those 100 full-time FBI agents assigned to the various Clinton investigations strained the Bureau's resources a little. But, hey, it was a choice of tracking down terrorists or chasing down Clinton's dingus, so of course they chose to focus on the really important issue -- the one so important that conservatives had to tie the country up for a year and trump up a phoney impeachment over it.

Where was Clinton the last eight years?

Unlike most of his critics and enemies, he was trying to do his job

This sounds like something put out by Phillip-Morris's P.R. firm.

Great entertainer. But if he'd been president, we'd have had to impeach him ten or fifteen times.

McCain is a class act. A genuine hero who genuinely speaks his mind.

His main goal, he said, was "to establish a personal relationship," something Mr. Bush, like his father before him, views as the most critical factor in stabilizing relations with the biggest powers.

As I remember, his father liked to establish personal relationships with asian leaders by vomiting on them.

I hope George does as well.

These are some of those terrorists that Clinton didn't do a thing about. Except catch them and punish them.

Let's see if Bush does as well.

Someone might say she has not technically violated her oath of office. But Webster's dictionary has another definition of treason. It is a betrayal of a trust or confidence. Under this definition of treason, she is certainly guilty.

Horse manure!

All McKinney is guilty of is exercising her rights as an American and as a legislator.

That makes her a lot less dangerous to American liberty than constantly whining bellyachers who decry every opposing point of view as 'treason.'

Everyone please note that it is LIBERAL Democrats who are standing up for Israel here.

Conversely, it is the very conservative Bush administration that is criticizing Israel for doing the exact same thing it is doing itself.

Now, tell me again how conservatives are always in the right.

...even Israel´s isolation as the living sacrifice to buy the terrorists´ participation in a "war on terror..."

Or Israel's further isolation from the West as a gesture of attempted appeasement to the oil-producing nations.e.g. , "Promise us lots of cheap oil and no terrorism and we'll abandon Israel."

That sounds like a rotten thing for the USA to do, but my Bible says we're gonna do it anyway, for one reason or another, some day soon. And that day is fast approaching.

When the appointed time comes, America will turn her back on Israel and leave her to face a whole hostile world all alone. And then get ready to watch the fur fly!

The Dreaded and Fearsome Day of the Lord. Coming soon to a universe near you.

Newsday should be shut down for printing such an outrageous and pathetic piece. Grrrr.

Don't worry -- you won't have long to wait if Bush and Ashcroft get their way.

In fact, I expect that it will soon be against the law to say anything bad about Bush. Even now, people are being fired for it. Incarceration will come next.

Are conservatives alarmed by this deliberate weakening of our protection FROM the ever-increasing powers of the government? Nope. They're cheering it along.

Is there a version of this that schoolkids can take home so they can look for illegal things mommy and daddy might be doing?

They did that in "1984."

Poor David. Must be tough when all those microphones and cameras go away and nobody wants to hear what you have to say anymore. Or even cares who you are. Fame is addictive and some people, once hooked, can never give it up, no matter how much hell they put themselves and their families through in order to keep blindly pursuing it.

Eventually, it drives people down and down and down until one day they wake up in the gutter, or on the Alex Jones Show, whichever comes last.

As to my comments about what this "unimpeachable" source is saying about conspiracy theories nowadays, I could not express it better than Schippers himself did in this interview:

I've ran into a lot of nuts who came up with a not of strange theories, outer space, and things like that.