SorryEverybody

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

'nuff said. Think it's a cool site.

It is getting some good coverage.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041201/041201_se2358_bcol.standard.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6578560/

I only wish we could let the world know how sorry we are for the actions of our President.

I'm even sorrier about the frightened fools who re-elected the idiot! It was bad enough to have Dubya imposed on the U.S. by judicial coup in 2000. Freely voting for someone who's taken America into an unnecessary war, is bad for their own pocketbooks and is bankrupting the nation suggests that a large part of the U.S. population is officially brain dead! x(

>I'm even sorrier about the frightened fools who re-elected

>the idiot! It was bad enough to have Dubya imposed on the

>U.S. by judicial coup in 2000. Freely voting for someone

>who's taken America into an unnecessary war, is bad for their

>own pocketbooks and is bankrupting the nation suggests that a

>large part of the U.S. population is officially brain dead!

>x(

LOL! Their candidates keep winning, and they have taken over every branch of the Government.

By stark contrast, your views are a tiny minority fringe linked to an ever shrinking minority - to the point where you think you have to flee the country in order to be safe.

They won - and you lost.

Their views are ascendent as they persuade more and more of their fellow citizens to adopt them - while your views are spat out like sewer water and are being stomped on by more and more people.

They are triumphant and in power. You are defeated, marginalized, rejected, and pitifully fleeing for your life.

So who is the stupid one?

Dougie, in his glorification of the victory of American fascism and gloating over the losers, has just described Germany in the 1930's. The parallels are more than eerie. They're frightening. But at least Dougie has finally come out of his Nazi closet! He obviously cribs his material from "Der Stuermer."

One thing, though: the Nazis were ascendant for a while, but were consigned to the garbage bin of history. Meanwhile, the people who got out of Germany while they still could turned out to be the smart ones!

Of course, Dougie also continues to spout the big lies of his mentor, Dr. Goebbels. The truth is that only a narrow majority supported Bush in this past election. The U.S. continues to be almost evenly divided, politically. And it's not at all clear that the slim majority that elected Bush did so because it believes in his fascist philosophy. Those true believers aren't enough to elect a president. Bush managed to rustle up enough votes to win because he succeeded in scaring enough dim-witted voters about the dangers of changing horses in mid-stream, even if this particular horse is fatally infected with foot-in-mouth disease!

Dougie's raptures remind us that lots of homosexuals supported the Nazis. (What uniforms! What boots! What blond hunks! What spectacle!). They made up a whole wing of the party! Just like the gay Republiscum, whose votes were actually enough by themselves to give Bush his margin of victory! Unfortunately, Dougie's selective amnesia causes him to forget what happened to the gay Nazis. He needs to buy a good history of the Third Reich and read up on the "Night of the Long Knives" to get a good idea of what's in store for him and his ilk! So gloat while you may, hon! It's not likely to be for long. . .

Just look in the mirror Douglas.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

>Dougie, in his glorification of the victory of American

>fascism and gloating over the losers, has just described

>Germany in the 1930's. The parallels are more than eerie.

>They're frightening. But at least Dougie has finally come out

>of his Nazi closet! He obviously cribs his material from "Der

>Stuermer."

LOL! Like a trained monkey:

Respond to a post written by this clinically certifiable paranoid, and, like clockwork, he'll start ranting and raving about Nazi Facism and equating himself with Jews in concentration camps. I never tire of the entertainment value from this.

That's what happens when one's mother fills one's childhood prattling on about the Holocaust and inculcating into the child's head their supreme victim status - which then becomes both self-fulfilling prophesy and eager desire.

God, how badly do you want to be emaciated and in a concentration camp? It's really all you think about - and, I bet, jerk off to.

>Just look in the mirror Douglas.

Well, there's a profound response. Are you rubber and I glue, as well?

>"As democracy is perfected, the office of president

>represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the

>people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the

>land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White

>House will be adorned by a downright moron."

I'm glad, now that they're getting crushed over and over, that liberals are finally confessing their dislike of democrarcy and the "masses." That's so much better - and more honest - than when you used to pretend to like those things.

I would hardly call 52% crushing. It was a very close race. No, I'm not happy at all that Bush won, and I may have to consider relocating at some point in the future if the trend continues (we're talking several more elections). But I think, like anything else, it'll eventually reverse and the Democrats will win again. I just hope it's not too late (and yes, this is a biased statement, but...well...I'm biased...I don't like the way the country is heading and won't pretend I do).

>I would hardly call 52% crushing. It was a very close race.

The plight of the Democrats isn't measured exclusively by the Presidential race. In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans control every branch of Government - the U.S. Senate, the House, the courts, most state houses, etc.

In this race, not only did the Democrats lose against a very vulnerable President, when they were unprecedentedly united, but they lost seats in Congress and even suffered the humiliation of losing their Senate Leader. That hasn't happened for 50 years.

Worse, the Democrats just keep losing national elections. If you aren't that bothered by the 2004 results, how about 2002? For the first time in literally decades, the party of a sitting President GAINED seats in both houses of Congress in a mid-term election.

Worse still, there is serious re-alignment going on. The GOP domination is now confined not just to the South and West, but is starting to seep into the middle of the country as well. All of those "Reagan Democrats" look to be transforming into permanent Republicans, so that Democratic influence is becoming rapidly confined to small enclaves on the coasts.

Virtually all Democrats I"ve heard are very candid about the fact that Democrats and ESPECIALLY liberals are in serious danger of becoming a permanently marginalized political wing. For some reason, the only people I hear who are in denial about these facts seem to be the ones here. Go figure.

>

Democratic influence is

>becoming rapidly confined to small enclaves on the coasts.

>

>Virtually all Democrats I"ve heard are very candid about the

>fact that Democrats and ESPECIALLY liberals are in serious

>danger of becoming a permanently marginalized political wing.

>For some reason, the only people I hear who are in denial

>about these facts seem to be the ones here. Go figure.

I'm only an outsider but I do study US politics and society in general and come to a somewhat different conclusion than you do. The Democrats are strong on both coasts(apart from the south east) and in the north midwest. These regions represent the brain trust of the US. They contain the major financial, economic, intellectual and artistic centers of the US. The rest of the country, if separated from these centers, would constitute a region strong in natural resources and not much else, on a relative basis. Not unlike my own country, Canada (although we differ greatly in our system of values).

It is interesting that the breakdown in the demographic makeup of the US is slowly but surely aligning itself with the two parties, Democratic in the brain, and Republican in the brawn. What will be interesting is to see how this plays out. For when the brain and the body are at odds with each other, something will have to give!

Ehhh...I still think the Democrats will make a comeback. (I'm now Libertarian btw, but I voted Democrat.)

Yes, I fully admit the Republicans control all the major branches now (though it's interesting to note how slow things are moving even given this). And no, I'm not happy about Republicans controlling everything, but there's not much I can do.

But I think it's far, far, far overstating it that we're being crushed and that our ideals are being wiped out. I think that's simply a fallacy. And I think like the tide or the stock market or the weather or anything else variable, it'll be this way for a while, but then it'll turn again.

I also agree with the poster about the polarizing of our nation. It really does seem like increasingly, there are two nations, the United States of Blue and the United States of Red. And I too am wondering how it'll play out in the next several years. It's not a particularly healthy situation.

Also, as to the "brains vs. brawn" argument, not to say anything about individuals (these are just facts), but I saw...and no, I don't have the link anymore unfortunately, a statiscal breakdown of states by average IQ. Except for a few interchanged in the very middle (and I believe those were all tied and listed alphabetically), the blue states were highest.

I also find it interesting that the states hit the hardest by the 9/11 attacks (Washington DC, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) voted heavily democratic (at least for President; I honestly don't know about Congress).

If you're Republican, believe what you believe, and are happy with that, good for you. I don't agree with you, but you're certainly entitled to your ideals and beliefs. Just because your party has had some success the last few years, though, it doesn't invalidate our ideals or our beliefs. Do we have a setback right now? Sure. Can we overcome it? I think so - only time will tell.

Did he really right that the zdemocrats were "crushed"? LOL! I know now. Doug writes the dialogue for Saturday morning cartoon villains. Better yet, all you need to do is add an english accent and he can be the next Star Wars villain. :+

Typos like this happen when you are typing with one hand and brushing your teeth with the other. :-)

>I'm only an outsider but I do study US politics and society in

>general . . . .

Oh, so you "study" us, do you? I can't say I blame you. If I lived in Canada, I would direct my focus elsewhere as well - just to prevent myself from croaking of torturous boredom, if for no other reason.

The Democrats are strong on both coasts(apart from the

>south east) and in the north midwest. These regions represent

>the brain trust of the US. They contain the major financial,

>economic, intellectual and artistic centers of the US. The

>rest of the country, if separated from these centers, would

>constitute a region strong in natural resources and not much

>else, on a relative basis.

None of this matters. In your "studies" of U.S. politics and culture, you must not have come across the basic rules of democracy yet. We have a concept in this country called "one person, one vote." Everyone's vote counts equally. People who are rich and smart don't get more votes than people who are dumb and poor. The filthy masses you refer to as the "brawn" get to have their vote count equally as the elegant elite you refer to as the "brains."

Clearly, the Republicans have a significant - and growing - electoral advantage. Only an anti-democratic socialist - or a Canadian (same thing) - would think that this trend is somehow mitigated because the people in the minority are "smarter" than the ones in the majority.

By the way, have I violated any of your country's represessive and sweeping anti-speech laws yet?

>Not unlike my own country, Canada

This country, thank God, is not Canada. We don't have a huge part of our country so hating the other part that they want to secede. Unlike Canada, we don't have one part of our country speaking a different language and having allegience to a different history and foreign government wanting to separate from the other part.

When you come from a country drowning in ethnic hatred and regional strife like Candada is, it's understandable that you think that other countries are similiarly afflicted. But they're not.

>(although we differ greatly in our system of values).

Indeed. We have a thing called the First Amendment here that prevents the Government from putting people in jail for expressing unpopular opinion. Your Goverment routinely prosectes people for doing exactly that. Thank God for that different "system of values."

>Yes, I fully admit the Republicans control all the major

>branches now . . . .

Given this fact, which you necessarily acknowledge, how can you continue to claim that the difference between the parties is razor-thin? The GOP is dominating every aspect of national politics. Rather than pretend that's not so because it's painful to admit it, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge this fact and figure out what you're going to do about it?

>But I think it's far, far, far overstating it that we're being

>crushed and that our ideals are being wiped out. I think

>that's simply a fallacy. And I think like the tide or the

>stock market or the weather or anything else variable, it'll

>be this way for a while, but then it'll turn again.

OK, fine- things are going great. Keep doing what you're doing. There's no reason to chagne anything. Here's hoping that more and more liberals agree with you on that. Keep marching off the cliff.

I've said what I had to say on the electoral trends. But I will also say this:

When liberals run for political office, they have to pretend that they are not liberals. The entire Democratic National Convention was designed to hide what the delegates there really believed. Even though most of them were viciously anti-war in the glutes/SouthBchBttm strain, they made the convention seem like a convention of Pro-War veterans.

Listen to the things you read here. I read here someone calling the Iraqi insurgents who cut off people's heads "Freedom fighters." They hope the U.S. loses in Iraq and that the Muslim extremists win. They are true socialists and pacifists.

The extent to which those views are not just discredited, but hated, is reflected by the fact that nobody can run for national office and call themselves LIBREAL. But candidates are free to call themselves CONSERVATIVE and often do - and win.

Look at all the Democratic Presidential candidates of last 20 years. They either bend over backwards to show how NOT LIBREAL they are (Carter, Clinton), or they can't run from the label and so demand that labels don't matter (Kerry, Dukakis). Meanwhile, GOP candidates freely and proudly call themselves conservative.

Guess why that is? Because liberalism is POISON to the vast majority of the electorate. The only successful Democratic national candidate of the past 25 years (Clinton) succeeded by lashing out at liberals and doing all he could do to show that he was not a liberal ("The era of big government is over"; welfare reform; Sister Souljah; school uniforms, etc). The previous successful Democratic candidate (Carter) was a Southern born-again Evangelical preacher who, at least then, was anything but a liberal.

Isn't the writing on the fucking wall? Even if you want to prevent that the GOP and Democratic parties are close in terms of votes, liberalism - true liberalism, of the type you see here - is dead, hated, reviled and poisonous.

Why do liberals feel better denying these facts?

>I'm only an outsider but I do study US politics and society in

>general and come to a somewhat different conclusion than you

>do. The Democrats are strong on both coasts(apart from the

>south east) and in the north midwest. These regions represent

>the brain trust of the US.

Well, I'll just throw some gasoline on the fire here.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about how the people who voted against Bush are the brilliant minds of the world and how could that other 52% be so stupid.

Well boys and girls, the little inconvient FACT that no one likes to talk about is the Black Vote. If blacks didn't vote for Democrats as they do (nearly 90% of blacks vote for the Dems) the vast majority of Democrats could not win elections. Period. And what do we know about the the educational system regarding blacks? They're consistantly left holding the short end of the stick (a system that is owned by the Dems and the teachers' unions). I think it would be safe to say that of that 90% who vote Democrat, a large chunk isn't the most, shall we say, "informed".

So, when I hear you liberals caterwauling about the toothless white Christian hicks of Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Georgia voting for Bush, don't forget you've got your own toothless wonders living in the Bronx, South Central LA, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Chicago. If you consider THAT "the brain trust of the US" then no wonder you keep losing elections.

Politely yours,

FFF

>>I'm only an outsider but I do study US politics and society

>in

>>general and come to a somewhat different conclusion than you

>>do. The Democrats are strong on both coasts(apart from the

>>south east) and in the north midwest. These regions

>represent

>>the brain trust of the US.

>

>

>Well, I'll just throw some gasoline on the fire here.

>

>I'm sick and tired of hearing about how the people who voted

>against Bush are the brilliant minds of the world and how

>could that other 52% be so stupid.

>

>Well boys and girls, the little inconvient FACT that no one

>likes to talk about is the Black Vote. If blacks didn't vote

>for Democrats as they do (nearly 90% of blacks vote for the

>Dems) the vast majority of Democrats could not win elections.

>Period. And what do we know about the the educational system

>regarding blacks? They're consistantly left holding the short

>end of the stick (a system that is owned by the Dems and the

>teachers' unions). I think it would be safe to say that of

>that 90% who vote Democrat, a large chunk isn't the most,

>shall we say, "informed".

>

>So, when I hear you liberals caterwauling about the toothless

>white Christian hicks of Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi

>and Georgia voting for Bush, don't forget you've got your own

>toothless wonders living in the Bronx, South Central LA,

>Detroit, Philadelphia, and Chicago. If you consider THAT "the

>brain trust of the US" then no wonder you keep losing

>elections.

>

>Politely yours,

>

>FFF

Don't look now, but your true racist colors are on display for all to see.

>Don't look now, but your true racist colors are on display for

>all to see.

Right - you're allowed to say that all White Christians who vote Republican are stupid. You're allowed to say that people who live in the middle of the country and reject liberalism are white trash morons.

But you're not allowed to say that inner-city black people suffer from poor education, even though it's empiraclly true. In fact, the fact that it's true makes it even worse to point out.

What an amusing double standard. Too bad nobody is falling for it any longer.

And how ironic - sweetly ironic - that one of the most viciously anti-Christian people on this Board, who routinely spits up the most bigoted garbage ever about White Christians living in the middle of the country - is the first one to run and scream RACIST at FFF's factually accurate post.

>

>>Don't look now, but your true racist colors are on display

>for

>>all to see.

>

>Right - you're allowed to say that all White Christians who

>vote Republican are stupid. You're allowed to say that people

>who live in the middle of the country and reject liberalism

>are white trash morons.

Well, Doug as usual, you are a pathological liar. Time to put up or shut up. Cite chapter and verse where I said all White Christians are stupid. Cite where I have said people who live in the middle of the country and reject liberalism are white trash morons. Since I've never said this, and you've said that I have, your lying is apparent for all to see.

>

>But you're not allowed to say that inner-city black people

>suffer from poor education, even though it's empiraclly true.

>In fact, the fact that it's true makes it even worse to point

>out.

>

>What an amusing double standard. Too bad nobody is falling

>for it any longer.

>

>And how ironic - sweetly ironic - that one of the most

>viciously anti-Christian people on this Board, who routinely

>spits up the most bigoted garbage ever about White Christians

>living in the middle of the country - is the first one to run

>and scream RACIST at FFF's factually accurate post.

You have characterized me as one of the most viciously anti-Christian people on this board......that is really laughable. In your pea-brained opinion, just who are the authentic Christians? Is Jerry Falwell a Christian? Was Mother Teresa a Christian? Was Martin Luther King a Christian? Is Alan Keyes a Christian? Lots of difference in the views of these people, so tell us who the real Christians are, and who are the imposters. Since you have all the answers and anyone who sees things differently from you has to be wrong, we're all waiting to hear what great pearls of wisdom you're ready to crap out for us.

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom. He also said, "By their fruits ye shall know them". If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, a whole lot of folks who claim to be Christians really aren't. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the proof is in the pudding. Now tell us what a Christian is, according to the Gospel of Doug69. This one should really be rich.

Your all or nothing, simplistic mode of thinking is consistent with the world view of your hero, George W. Bush. It's classic with dry drunks (like Bush) and narcissists (like you). That's why so many of the lies you tell here cast every argument in sheer hyperbole.

Now spell it out for us, what is a Christian? I know this will be difficult for you, since everything is black and white in your tired, dismal, intra-anal existence.

>Well, Doug as usual, you are a pathological liar. Time to put

>up or shut up. Cite chapter and verse where I said all White

>Christians are stupid. Cite where I have said people who live

>in the middle of the country and reject liberalism are white

>trash morons. Since I've never said this, and you've said

>that I have, your lying is apparent for all to see.

I ddn't say that you said that "all White Christians are stupid." I said that you said that all White Christians who voted For Bush are stupid. Are you denying that you said that? Do you use the term "white trash" to describe people in the South who are Republicans? Do you?

>You have characterized me as one of the most viciously

>anti-Christian people on this board......that is really

>laughable. In your pea-brained opinion, just who are the

>authentic Christians?

Since I'm not a mind-reader and don't purport to know what is someone's heart, I consider anyone who professes a believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and who professes adherence to the teachings, is a Christian.

If there are any other basic terms that you need defined, I'm afraid you'll have to consult a dictionary.

Is Jerry Falwell a Christian? Was

>Mother Teresa a Christian? Was Martin Luther King a

>Christian? Is Alan Keyes a Christian?

All of them professes a belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'd say they were all Christians.

While fascinating, none of this has anything to do with FFF's point or with your anti-white racism.

>Now spell it out for us, what is a Christian? I know this

>will be difficult for you, since everything is black and white

>in your tired, dismal, intra-anal existence.

Whatever a Christian is, I'm pretty sure that they aren't marked by the kind of hateful trash that routine spews out of your mouth - such as the above filth, or your use of the term "White trash" to refer to White Southerners with different political views than you have. When considering who is and is not a Christian, I'd say that's a pretty good start.

"I said that you said that all White Christians who

>voted For Bush are stupid. Are you denying that you said

>that?"

Yes, King Liar, I am denying I said that, so rather than making shit up, as many here have stated that you do so frequently, I'll give you a real quote so you there will be one less lie you'll have to tell:

ALL PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BUSH ARE STUPID!!!!!"

Do you use the term "white trash" to describe people in

>the South who are Republicans? Do you?

I use the term "white trash" to describe people who are "white trash". They are not limited to living in the South. By the way, you don't live in the South, do you? Just asking.

>

>>You have characterized me as one of the most viciously

>>anti-Christian people on this board......that is really

>>laughable. In your pea-brained opinion, just who are the

>>authentic Christians?

>

>Since I'm not a mind-reader and don't purport to know what is

>someone's heart,

Oh, what horseshit! You're constantly judging people here as if you know what's in their minds and hearts. You just can't stop the lying, can you?

I consider anyone who professes a believe in

>Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and who professes

>adherence to the teachings, is a Christian.

That's a good definition of a fundamentalist Christian, but certainly not one that would encompass the gamut of Christian belief.

>

>If there are any other basic terms that you need defined, I'm

>afraid you'll have to consult a dictionary.

>

>Is Jerry Falwell a Christian? Was

>>Mother Teresa a Christian? Was Martin Luther King a

>>Christian? Is Alan Keyes a Christian?

>

>All of them professes a belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

>I'd say they were all Christians.

I didn't ask for a dictionary definition, I was asking for your definition. Thankfully, now you've provided it, and it's just as shallow and stupid as I would have expected from you. "professing adherence to the teachings of Christ is quite different from "adhering to the teachings of Christ".

>

>While fascinating, none of this has anything to do with FFF's

>point or with your anti-white racism.

I harbor no prejudice toward white people, though I'm not terribly fond of idiots of any color. In your case, I don't dislike you because you're white; I dislike you because you're a narcissistic, hypocritical liar. You, on the other hand, show your anti-semitism, xenophobia, and other assorted bigotries all the time here, especially when you reply to Trilingual. Face it, Dougie, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

>

>>Now spell it out for us, what is a Christian? I know this

>>will be difficult for you, since everything is black and

>white

>>in your tired, dismal, intra-anal existence.

>

>Whatever a Christian is, I'm pretty sure that they aren't

>marked by the kind of hateful trash that routine spews out of

>your mouth - such as the above filth, or your use of the term

>"White trash" to refer to White Southerners with different

>political views than you have. When considering who is and is

>not a Christian, I'd say that's a pretty good start.

And again, you'd be wrong. I've made it quite clear in prior posts that I do not use the term "Christian" to describe myself. Using your puerile definition of Christian, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be associated with the Falwells and Robertsons and Bushes whom you worship. And in the slim chance that Falwell and his ilk are right, and there is a hell, I'd much rather be there than with these smug, self-righteous pricks in a "heaven". Such a heaven would really be hell.

>

"Face it, Dougie, you are the pot calling the kettle black."

ROFLMAO!!! The sheer hypocrisy and absolute audacity of this statement can not be described in mere words.

>Yes, King Liar, I am denying I said that, . . . .

I've seen countless posts from you, exchanged with VaHawk, where you called anyone from the South who rejects liberalism "white trash." You can deny that all you want, but your doing so makes clear who the liar is.

>I use the term "white trash" to describe people who are "white

>trash". They are not limited to living in the South.

You've repeatedly used the term "white trash" when screaming at VaHawk to refer to white people in the South who don't embrace liberalism.

Anyone who uses the term "white trash" to refer to white people - as you admit you do, becasue you have to admit it - forfeits any moral authority to call other people "racists".

You've also claimed, in posts to me, that whether a particular political comment is appropriate or not is dependent upon the color of the person's skin who is doing the speaking. Anyone who spouts that crap has no business calling other people "racists."