1. Abortion. First and foremost, Democrats choose "choice." It is their premier litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

What kind of pathetic,evil monsters place the murder of innocent, unborn babies above all else? Democrats, that's who.

<link>

2. Less freedom, and bigger government. As government grows ever larger, it necessarily consumes a larger and larger portion of our productivity, decreasing our liberty and personal options. Lying for socialism is what the Democrat Party does constantly. It works because public education is run by socialists. "Public education is a socialist monopoly." - Milton Friedman, late professor emeritus and Nobel Laureate

3. Defeat and retreate. Capitulating to terrorism has a long and cowardly pedigree. The British fell for cowardice when Neville Chamberlain went crawling to Adolph Hitler and returned with a worthless piece of paper signed by the Nazi, promising to make nice. Said Chamberlain, "Peace in our time."

The far wiser Winston Churchill said, "You want peace, you shall have war."

4. Lies, lies,and more lies.

Bill Clinton is a pathological liar. Democrats laugh and celebrate his lies. When Bush (41) broke his "read my lips" promise to cut taxes, he was denied a second term. Republicans did not excuse his conduct as Democrats excuse Clinton. Of course lying Democrats handily reelected Clinton even after he hiked taxes he promised to "cut."

No Democrat will begin to admit even these facts, so it would be pointless to add more.

You're kind of a one trick pony. Too bad the Republican congress and president didn't choose to grant citizenship to a fertilized egg when they had the six year chance.

Bet you're a Huckster supporter. How 'bout that rapist?

I am a Democrat, please do not include me in your discriminatory phrases or think that you even have a clue as to what I believe.

I agree with Rodfather. I'm no longer a Democrat because of some of the policies of the party at the national level, but neither am I a Republican..

Personally I believe both parties have moved far afield of their support bases, and both need to take corrective action along these lines..

However being either a Democrat or a Republican does not mean that one is gullible enough to blindly support any of their elected leaders. Many sane, sensible people in both parties, who have the ability to think for themselves, and make their decisions based on the information, and on their own intelligence and reason.

Which is precisely what I hope will happen in November, 2008.

My party, right or wrong, doesn't quite seem to cut it any longer.

That's part of what's wrong with this nation, and WE, THE PEOPLE, need to take the appropriate corrective action..

Liberals enjoy attacking conservatives in the most hateful and vile terms they can create, from "racist" to "fascist" to "Nazi" to "greedy-rich", you name it. Liberal Democrats just can't get nasty enough when they attack Republicans with the most despicable generalizations. Democrats have even coined some new terms expressing their contempt and hatred, including "Bushbots" and "neocons."

It does absolutely no good to tell Democrats not to "generalize" with respect to conservatives. They do it constantly. But if anyone even calls a Democrat a "liberal" they go into apoplectic shock.

Such hypocrisy is typical for the Left:

The Rodfather wrote:

I am a Democrat, please do not include me in your discriminatory phrases or think that you even have a clue as to what I believe.

Since this is the first post I've seen from Rodfather, I can't make any judgements here. However what he said struck an empathetic not with me. Having a certain party affiliation does not man that one must swallow the party line, hook, line and sinker.

As for myself, neither liberal or conservative. I've always tried to look for the best person for the job, with party affiliation being a secondary concern, even in the days when I was a Democrat.

And no direct allusion to you here, for I don't know you either, but Liberals aren't the only ones who make generalizations. At some point in time, all of us are probably guilty of this.

There are many good Democrats who don't toe the party line. And I have no doubt that the same thing could be said of many Republicans.

When the day comes that WE, THE PEOPLE, are incapable of thinking and acting independently, the Republic will be lost.

The bitter polarization that's gripped us since 1992 will eventually be our undoing if we don't find a way to stop it.

• Democratic Party Official Web Site
• Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States

If the shoe of rhetoric and behaviour fits, then the ugly words that describe that behaviour also fit.

Lets look at two examples in the case of reproductive rights.

As a conservative you advocate THE GOVERNMENT's RIGHT to violate the 4th and 13th Amendments by reaching INTO a person's body and demanding that the person provide involuntary servitude to someone else. Last time I checked my history, the previous governments of significance that asserted the right of control and ownership of the bodies of their citizens were all totalitarian and largely facist.

This is a fundamental issue you cannot escape. You advocate The Government's Right to seize control of a woman's body with no due process or warrant because that is the only legal rubrick that allows for the prohibition of all abortions.

As for racism. Your argument essentially goes as follows:

• Liberals support abortion rights
• Black women get a disproportionate number of the abortions in the USA
• Therefore Liberals are trying to get blacks to have more abortions.

The problem with that logic is that you are presuming that black women are necessarily less able to make informed moral and ethical choices about reproductive rights than other "races".

There is no evidence that suggests this to be true except for YOUR opinion about the morality of abortion. This means that it is YOU who are asserting that black women are less capable of making informed moral decisions.

Since that is based in belief that is disconnected from fact, that means you are making a pre-judgement out of ignorance about black women's congitive abilities based purely on their race. Prejudgment is the same as prejudice. Prejudice based on "race" is the definition of racism

So your own assertions about abortion and black women indict you as someone advocating governmental facism as well as holding racist opinions of black women.

So why should anyone shrink from calling you on it? Where is the hypocrisy in that?

So in one post you complain that democrats and liberals are liars, rascists, cowards and are evil, pathetic murderers of babies.

Then, I guess because your attention span can be measured in the milliseconds, you post this....

Liberals enjoy attacking conservatives in the most hateful and vile terms they can create, from "racist" to "fascist" to "Nazi" to "greedy-rich", you name it. Liberal Democrats just can't get nasty enough when they attack Republicans with the most despicable generalizations. Democrats have even coined some new terms expressing their contempt and hatred, including "Bushbots" and "neocons."

The smell of irony is in the air.....

1. Throw as much dust in the air and blow as much smoke as you can. Try to avoid talking about issues.

2. Accuse the democrats of spending all our money and ignore that the national debt tripled while Reagan and Bush 41 were in office and doubled while "W" was president. Let's not talk about the claim that Ronald Reagan proved deficit spending is ok.

3. Let's try to expend a lot of hot air talking about Clinton not responding to terrorist attacks and hope nobody remembers the 241 marines who died in Beirut.....exactly what did Reagan do about that, I forget....oh yeah. He invaded Grenada.

4. Let's spend a lot of time trying to compare the "liberals" of today and their supposed surrender to terrorists (by wanting to end our occupation of Iraq) to the actions of Neville Chamberlain (a conservative) when he agreed not to defend the Czechs if Hitler invaded.

Does it bother you that Bush 41 did not stand up to the Chinese when they massacred their citizens at Tiananmen Square? You do seem to think that we should have intervened in Rwanda, but didn't because the democrats are rascists. As a matter of fact, I wish we had intervened in Rwanda, as well. I also think we should have intervened in Bosnia sooner than we did. Kinda seems that the republicans were against that at the time. You guys are kind of selective in your views of right and wrong. You'll have to explain the rules to me some time. Reagan is president and triples the national debt and you talk about democrats spending and increasing the size of government, but that was ok.

A little harsh, buddy, and way over the top. I disagree with the Democrats, and I won't become one in the near future, but I think that generalizing a party supported by a good chunk of Americans- many good Americans- as cowardly, lying racists is going too far. There's a reason that bipartisanship is hard, and one is because of unbending prejudices on both sides. If you don't like their policies, by all means speak out clearly. But people tend to turn their noses away from the smell of extreme emotion, and dude, you need a mint.

MiddleView (sic) wrote this:

1. Throw as much dust in the air and blow as much smoke as you can. Try to avoid talking about issues.

CaliforniaDreamin responds:

In fact, I talk about issues constantly. It is leftists, like "Middleview" (sic) who spew venomous pejoratives and pretend that the issue is settled. Leftists constantly promote race and class warfare, with simple sentences, notably "Republicans are racists. Neocons are greedy and rich.

Bushbots are stupid and do what their handlers tell them."

Comments such as those are what pass for intellectualism in liberal circles. The very name of "Middleview" is dishonest, as is "progressive" (sic).

Middleview (sic) continues:

2. Accuse the democrats (sic) of spending all our money and ignore that the national debt tripled while Reagan and Bush 41 were in office and doubled while "W" was president. Let's not talk about the claim that Ronald Reagan proved deficit spending is ok.

CaliforniaDreamin responds:

Democrats have always been for tax hikes and increased spending. Should any conservative mention Bill Clinton, the eternal response from leftists is "He's no longer in office. Let's talk about BUSH!" But undaunted by their own hypocrisy, leftists don't mind invoking the now dead and buried Ronald Reagan. NO, deficit spending is NOT "okay" as you said. But congress hiked Reagan's budgets then as it does today. Unlimited earmarks are grossly irresponsible. Democrats are famous for abusing them.

Middleview writes more:

3. Let's try to expend a lot of hot air talking about Clinton not responding to terrorist attacks and hope nobody remembers the 241 marines who died in Beirut.....exactly what did Reagan do about that, I forget....oh yeah. He invaded Grenada.

CaliforniaDreamin replies to Middleview's hot air:

I didn't mention Clinton not "responding to terrorist attacks."
You did. What I like to point out is that Clinton was so busy with Monica Lewinsky and perjury and obstruction of justice that he turned down Sudan's offer to hand Osama bin Laden over to America three separate times.

I like to point out Clinton's turning his back on the Rwandan Genocide, that claimed 800,000 black Tutsis. Clinton did, however, invade Bosnia, home of white Bosnians, but no WMDs and no threat to America. How are those for "issues"?

Want more "issues"?
Here ya go:
Clinton pardoned scores of convicted felons, like Mark Rich.

Clinton broke his campaign promise to CUT our taxes.
Clinton RAPED Juanita Broaddrick.
Clinton is a coward who dodged the draft.
Clinton boinked Gennifer Flowers for 11 years while "married".

Middleview (sic) again:

4. Let's spend a lot of time trying to compare the "liberals" of today and their supposed surrender to terrorists (by wanting to end our occupation of Iraq) to the actions of Neville Chamberlain (a conservative) when he agreed not to defend the Czechs if Hitler invaded.

CaliforniaDreamin corrects the latest:

Don't put your name in parentheses. You certainly don't do that when you lefties hatefully call us neocons and fascists.

Tell me, and everyone else, DID Chamberlain "defend" the Czechs? Oops. Well, no he couldn't even defend Britain.

Middleview (eyeroll) again:

Does it bother you that Bush 41 did not stand up to the Chinese when they massacred their citizens at Tiananmen Square? You do seem to think that we should have intervened in Rwanda, but didn't because the democrats (sic) are rascists. (sic) As a matter of fact, I wish we had intervened in Rwanda, as well. I also think we should have intervened in Bosnia sooner than we did. Kinda seems that the republicans (sic) were against that at the time. You guys are kind of selective in your views of right and wrong. You'll have to explain the rules to me some time. Reagan is president and triples the national debt and you talk about democrats (sic) spending and increasing the size of government, but that was ok.

CaliforniaDreamin concludes:

1. When the economy grew under Reagan, leftists screeched, "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."

2. BUT, when the economy grew during Clinton's reign of sexual predation and pathological lying, leftists cooed, "The economy's in good shape."

Hypocrisy - it's what the Left does best. Well, after lying and spewing out the most hateful epithets they can think of, from "racists" to "fascists" to "Nazis." They grew so tired of repeating those ad nauseum, they made up "neocons" and "Bushbots".

1. The $3 trillion borrowed by Reagan and Bush(41) and the $5 trillion borrowed by "W" are because of the democratic Congress.

a: The president submits the budget. The president has final say on the budget. In 7 of 8 years the Congress passed a lower budget than Reagan asked for. The number of earmarks in the budget soared when the republicans controlled the Congress and the White House. You do remember the bridges to nowhere don't you?

2. Democrats celebrate Clinton's lies.....really? a: I wasn't invited to that party. Of course, I was a republican then, so maybe that explains it. Clinton lied about having an affair with Lewinsky. That was none of my business.

3. Democrats are for larger government and less freedom.....

a: Now that is just as funny as the claim that republicans are fiscally conservative. Bush has overseen the greatest assault on the constitution ever. He ignored the FISA act and authorized wiretaps and "sneak and peek" searches without a court order. He has had people arrested for no more than wearing a Kerry tshirt or having an anti-Bush bumper sticker. Cheney had a man arrested in Vail, Colorado for saying "Your policies are reprehensible, Mr Cheney". Look it up.

4. Clinton lied about cutting taxes.

a: Did you know how many times Reagan raised taxes? Would you say that Bush lied? He did say that he wouldn't involve the US in nation building. Isn't that what we are doing in Iraq?

5. Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick.

a: The problem here is that she changed her story so many times that it is difficult to know the truth. He was never charged and she never pressed charges.

6. Clinton dodged the draft.

a: For the record, I did not vote for Clinton. Now, that having been said and having been one of the grand prize winners in the draft of 1971, I have to tell you that Bush managed to jump a two year waiting list to get into the Texas guard.....that is also dodging the draft. Cheney had 5 deferrments....not exactly an enthusiastic volunteer for national service, but then he had "other priorities". Yeah, so did I.

7. Clinton could have taken Bin Laden into custody on 2 or 3 or 10 occasions. Sudan would have turned him over in 1996.

a: This is one of the dumber fictions you guys push around. Lets assume that the gun runner who says he would have brokered such a deal is somehow reliable. What would we have taken him into custody for? What did we have evidence of that would justify taking him into custody? Is his anti-US speech enough? Can we run around the world arresting people who don't like us?

While we are at it, explain the signing statements that Bush uses to exclude himself from laws passed by the Congress. If you are concerned about Marc Rich being pardoned for tax evasion (remember he still had to pay the taxes and fines), what about Scooter Libby and his "get out of jail free" card?

Chamberlain did not go to war when Hitler took invaded Czechoslovakia. Those damn conservatives....couldn't be counted on to live up to their treaties.....Neville was a conservative, bubba.

Is there a reason why you think that condemning somebody else's use of vague and insulting generalizations by using vague and insulting generalizations is acceptable?

The smell of irony definately accompanies the dreamer, whereever he goes.

The true irony hre is that whether liberal or conservative, all any of us basically want is honest, responsible government in Washinton.

As for the current president, and the previous one, lots of room for improvement in both instances. The same could be said of the 535 assholes in Congress. That is a problem that WE, THE PEOPLE, can solve though.

As for what Republicans or Democrats stand for, that would depend on the individual Republican or Democrat. We are after all, not mindless sheep. Or at least we shouldn't be.

At this point in time though, both Republicans and Democrats need to exert more influence on their respective parties at the national level.

Maybe if we'd do that, we'd both get a better quality crop of candidates to represent us every two to six years.

Middleview, perhaps it is I who am actually the dreamer here. I honestly expect better of the bastards we put into office to represent us.

Irony, indeed.