I think we should call for a limited FReeper-DUer alliance over Clinton.

[LoZoccolo]

Someone else suggested it, and now that I've thought about it some more, I find that the idea is compelling. I see so much wasted and uncoordinated work on the Clinton-bashing front around here. For instance, noticably absent from the anti-Clinton arguments here are references to Vince Foster (the FReepers have actually compiled a list of fifty people that the Clintons have had killed), cocaine smuggling, orgies in the White House, Juanita Broaddrick, or Hillary's practice of wicca. They're doing some really great work at Free Republic that I think you guys could really use.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[Faygo Kid]

1. You forgot Clinton's advocacy for evolution

One of the really really big issues to the Freepers. Surely such madness must be stopped (I know, don't call you Shirley. . .)

[Syncronaut Seven]

11. Your smiley only has one eye!

.)

[ret5hd]

2. I 've got an idea instead...

now that Bill Clinton is working with THEM, let THEM call the truce.

[TwilightZone]

3. Somebody better tell Bill.

"Clinton Rips Bush Fiscal, Tax Policies"

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1136801&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

You were saying?

[LoZoccolo]

5. Ba ba ba ba baaaa...

I'm lovin' it.

[TwilightZone]

6. Are we feeling a little sheepish?

;)

[LoZoccolo]

7. No, the ba ba's are melodic.

It's from McDonalds' new ad campaign.

[TwilightZone]

15. Ah, yes.

Should have recognized the slogan.

[politick]

17. Actually, it's...

Ba DA ba BA baaaa.

I believe that's the correct spelling.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Indeed it is, thank you! n/t

[Nitrogenica]

4. I'm sure they want to clean up the corruption, that corruption

is costing the taxpayers a ton of money. We all need to trim the fat from the budget! Where's all that money that went missing in Iraq?! What are we getting for our money at Halliburton!! How many many millions should it take to take care of 500 prisoners at Gitmo? The taxpayer's money should be spent wisely!

[Historic NY]

8. I find it hard to believe that Clinton is called back to service...

once again by * so he can fix his mess. Don't you miss the nostalgia of the good old days, when a president actually was a president.

[Snotcicles]

9. Don't forget the warehouse of stolen Whitehouse items they own on Pluto

n/t

[Syncronaut Seven]

10. The Clinton's did all that? I'm really envious

How can I arrange to be adopted? Think of all the lesbianese I could convert with my massive manhood!

Actually, I think It's really unwise for the two species (human and freeper)to co-mingle. If the diseases they carry were ever to cross species, the human race might perish.

(sarcasm noted)

[magnolia]

58. They are way ahead.

You've got a lot of catching up to do. Start with the new and improved names: It's Clintoon, Klinton...and let's not forget the wife Hitlery.

(Personally...I love Bill!)

[Syncronaut Seven]

85. I hardly even "peek" over there any more.

But like a bad wreck, I do occasionally look at some of the snippets that folks post here. (Shame on me!) :evilgrin: I think I'm about as caught up as I need to be, thank you. :spank:

[Demeter]

12. The Freepers Make Things Up

I like to think we are pointing out real and serious flaws in Clinton's political path. We still have nothing in common with them.

[Gyre]

13. You could actually be violently opposed to the Clintons in office

and STILL be far left of where YOU are on the political spectrum. Yes. I know you find it hard to believe but it's true! You see, I believe that Clinton's arrogance, combined with his center-right foreign policy (making dems indistinguishable from repiglicans), helped deliver the WH to the anti-christ. Those were some damn short coat tails for Gore to ride, but what did smilin' Bill care? Seemed like he was just happy to leave office on his own two feet instead of on a rail.

Nominating Hillary would be just the move real Freepers desire. Because nobody would ever believe that she could win and therein lies the cover for another stolen election. I don't see a candidate that could visibly sweep the election for the dems to the degree necessary to prevent another theft, but Hillary isn't the one because she already has half the country hating her.

Gyre

[ulysses]

14. nah - they like welfare reform too much. n/t

[justgamma]

16. I agree.

Who in their right mind would want health care for everyone. Who would want a president who worked tirelessly to try to bring peace to the world? Who would want a president who actually cared about people? Who in their right mind would want a president to balance the budget?
What the hell were we thinking when we elected this bozo?

:sarcasm:

[ulysses]

19. if you can take a break from your sarcasm

I'd like your input over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4813102

[LoZoccolo]

20. Done. n/t

[ulysses]

21. would that be a "yes" to coalition?

!

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yes...

...but I consider "no one gets screwed" to be "avoiding not getting a Democrat in office entirely".

[ulysses]

23. heh - I consider it

to be "not voting for a Democrat and getting Republican policy in return".

Thanks for the vote. :)

[LoZoccolo]

24. Oh and let me guess...

...you get to decide what's Republican and what's not. :boring:

[ulysses]

25. nope. read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4813102#4813440

No one will force you to play if you don't want. OTOH, if you want to set the rules yourself, you could try offering the olive branch once in a while.

[LoZoccolo]

27. I would think it would be easy to decide that.

You mention the phenomenon of voting Democratic and getting Republican policies. That happens when we nominate someone who will lose against the Republican candidate, so that even if we vote Democratic, we will get Republican policies...from a Republican.

[ulysses]

28. it also happens when we nominate someone who wins

but then gives us republican policies. But you knew that.

[LoZoccolo]

31. That's impossible. n/t

[ulysses]

32. what's impossible?

(he asked, going down the rabbit hole yet again)

[LoZoccolo]

34. If Democrats vote for it, it's a Democratic policy too. n/t

[ulysses]

36. in that case, Democratic policy

would contain numerous cases in which it was self-denying. Some Dems voted for CAFTA, some against. So Dems are both for and against CAFTA?

Stupid idea.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

39. So is the flag-burning amendment, apparently.

Kucinich - aye!

[ulysses]

40. I seem to have overestimated you.

Your argument is that a Democratic vote for an issue means that that issue is a Democratic one. I deny that categorically. A Democratic vote against a flag-burning amendment doesn't mean that the Democratic party is against flag-burning - much as I think that the party should be.

It's a dumb argument, friend. Give it up.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Well so was yours.

You're like "are you for a coalition - oh by the way it has to be what I agree with". I'm like who cares, it's useless even talking about it. We'll find out in 2008 around January or February who can tilt the election one way or the other, and I'm likely to vote in the primary for whoever it is. The anti-CAFTA people are likely to be irrelevant because they'd rather spend time chopping down who voted for it in the past rather than getting enough people to agree with them on the actual issue to make it even come up during the election and making it a compelling reason to vote for a Democratic candidate who's against it.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

43. I can't either. n/t

[ulysses]

45. that's probably true. n/t

[ulysses]

44. "it's useless even talking about it."

Yeah, it probably is. You seem to have the outsome well in hand.

[LoZoccolo]

46. I don't understand that, but oh well.

So you get 1000 people at most on DU to form a "together-unless-we-get-screwed-plus-I-get-to-decide-what-getting-screwed-means" coalition. In the real world, that's miniscule, especially since they'd be scattered all throughout the country. And even if it could do something to the primary, if it doesn't make the general, it doesn't matter, plus you've screwed over everyone outside of your litmus test (like the people in New Orleans that were out of the radar of Nader's litmus tests, or the people in Iraq who were also out of the radar of Nader's litmus tests).

[ulysses]

48. I appreciate your input.

Hope you don't mind when I quote you.

[LoZoccolo]

49. The mods might have something to say about that. n/t

[ulysses]

52. indeed they might.

If my posts are removed, so be it. Then again, some of us aren't afraid of being quoted.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Neither am I.

I am, however, afraid of DU turning into a more obnoxious place.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

62. You're doing your part, for sure.

Downplaying the effectiveness of DU.

And...uh...making DU less of an obnoxious place???

[LoZoccolo]

68. There is a rule about continuing arguments from other threads.

It was put there to avoid people being obnoxious and stalking other people from thread to thread, which is obnoxious.

[Guaranteed]

74. Which is what you were doing to me, when you entered my thread,

which was subsequently disappeared.

[LoZoccolo]

75. You posted a question and I gave you a one-word answer.

I'm not going to argue further about that.

You broke the rules by posting that thread as a continuation of this one.

[Guaranteed]

76. Just stop following me into other threads, please.

Thanks.

[Guaranteed]

57. It's a lot more than that, in a week.

There are several thousand active DUers.

[LoZoccolo]

60. I don't see the point.

The way he framed it it's like "would you like to form a coalition, but on my terms, but I don't even tell you that in this post because it's in another one". What's the point? Even if it's ten thousand people, it's not really a coalition that is doing anything that it would have done without the coalition. The people who want to secede because of CAFTA will do so, the people who don't, won't...there is absolutely no point in making a coalition of this type, and I don't think there's much of a point to the post anyways.

[ulysses]

63. methinks you complain too much.

Probably because you aren't given explicit rights to set the terms. Centrists tend to be like that, in my experience. It's not even your fault.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Fuck it you're not worth getting in trouble over. n/t

[ulysses]

80. temper, temper!

:D

I'm a "freak" because I hold a different point of view than you do?

Don't worry - I'm not calling the mods, even though name-calling is an offense on DU.

on edit: Awww - don't self-delete on my account! You seem to know the rules well. Be yourself!

[LoZoccolo]

82. No, that's not why.

What do you call someone who keeps calling you back right after you hang up on them?

Yeah, same difference.

[ulysses]

83. you started the thread.

Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

84. And you hijacked it, which is against the rules.

And as soon as the mods get back you're going to get it for:

1. Hijacking the thread.
2. Threatening to stalk me into other threads.
3. Namecalling.

You'll probably get it for this freaky baiting behaviour that's surfaced as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason it's taking them this long is that they're drafting a warning for you.

I still can't get over that you're probably twice my age, and pulling adolescent message-board tricks. And no, it doesn't change my mind about my positions, while at the same time adding to the pile of manipulative tactics I've seen the opposition use.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

89. Would make him 13, for me.

You've been nothing but reasonable, ulysses, as usual.

[ulysses]

90. I can only hope

that someone, having had his head handed to him on a plate 8 or 9 times tonight, has had the sense to go to bed. :)

[Guaranteed]

91. Usually they do.

But you never know.

[LoZoccolo]

92. Waste of my time, plus I care fuck all if you think I'm chickenshit. n/t

[ulysses]

93. so go to bed already.

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

86. LOL....we all know LoZo, except for those who kid themselves. nt

[Guaranteed]

65. Think of DU as REPRESENTATIVE of Democrats in general.

I think that makes a pretty good amount of sense, and might make you back off a bit.

Might make you think twice about everything, actually....LOL.

Think about those who are reading, but aren't posting, even.

And that ain't shit.

There are countless Internet-bound Democrats who know everything we do (much to your chagrine), but don't post here. Many probably know more.

[LoZoccolo]

66. It doesn't.

First, there was that Pew Research study that came out about internet activists a few months ago, and then there's my first-hand experience with Illinois Dem Net in which both the unfamiliarity with DU of the people who do show up, and just the overall difference in tone and tenor of the things we do, is much different. So amongst the entire party, and the activists (who actually show up and do things), the difference is pronounced.

[Guaranteed]

73. Well, you've got an Illinois Dem right here, who has been

quite willing to "do" things.

I WENT to Crawford, just a few weeks ago- drove there from IL. That's right.

I've gone to plenty of DFA meetings. ACLU meetings. I even consider posting on *DU,* and fighting with your type, work.

I've been volunteering at a public-aid law agency for months now.

Fighting with the far left crazies as well. Oh yeah, that's most definitely work.

Trust me, though- if you're defending the DLC, LoZo, you're just WRONG.

I can understand that you're not into the far-left stuff. But the people you're defending are doing MASSIVE damage to our party. You have NO GODDAMNED CLUE how much, it seems, at least.

And there is an alternative. Your choice isn't "Biden or Kucinich." That's not it, and if you think it is, you need to learn think more critically.....deeper.

[Guaranteed]

59. I clearly said "NO WHORING" as one of the first requirements. nt

[LoZoccolo]

61. That's not a coalition.

The results will be the same without it.

Anyways, I think I'll go do something else now.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seabiscuit]

26. You forgot: he destroyed our economy and left the largest national debt

in histroy for George Bush to inherit.

[bluestateguy]

29. Ralph Nader and Mike Malloy might be interested

They are both nothing but leftist Clinton haters.

[ulysses]

30. thank you.

I've been unsure at times where you stood politically. I know now.

[LoZoccolo]

33. You can tell by how someone feels about Mike Malloy and Ralph Nader.

It's the one-question political test.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

54. LOL!!!

That's true, and it's not even saying that much.... IMO. ;)

[Guaranteed]

53. I'm not much of a Nader OR Malloy supporter.

Yet, somehow, I see the problems that cowardice within the DLC poses for our party.

So few of us have yet to realize that there are actually THREE factions in our party, at the moment.

[TheStates]

38. Rats...this is something I agreed with.

I don't really trust Clinton and there's alot of things about him that are opportunistic.

[Guaranteed]

47. Why your thread wasn't locked, and mine disappeared, I have no idea.

All I know is that you were put in your place. ;)

[katinmn]

50. Because LoZo had a disclaimer

read the fine print!

Someone must have thought you were serious.:)

[Guaranteed]

51. Sure.

:P

[shadowknows69]

71. Hil's a witch?

My opinion of her just went up a couple notches. not enough for me to vote for her but...

[LoZoccolo]

72. I don't think that's actually true.

I think it's something they made up, along with the cocaine and everything.

[brainshrub]

79. Orgies?

I never get invited to the good parties. :(

[ulysses]

81. LOL! n/t

[Moderator]

94. Locking

Who really thinks this is a good idea? From the flames and attacks, it seems not too many.