A few months ago, as part of his 50-State Strategy to revitalize the Democratic party, Gov. Dean implemented Democracy Bonds as a way to regularly donate money to the Democrats. Fast forward a few months, and now we’ve got the somewhat more clumsily named “Grow Our Party Funds” from Ken Mehlman and the RNC (you also get a free Bush/Cheney mousepad, I guess they’ve got to find some way to get rid of them) …
Imitation Is The Sincerest Form&
OTOH:
Maybe not
So which is it? A horrible attack on WW2 or a Republican swipe of a Dem fundraising strategy? (Lord knows I don’t believe a word of what’s printed on the CrushKerry.com website)
Which campaign used the name “Bonds” in wartime?
I report, you decide…
Wait! So those junk bonds I invested in are actually mocking WWII vets???!!!
I think the Repugnicants were spot on with their naming – they want you to put money into GOP Funds.
Then again, the way that the borrow and spend Publicans handle taxpayer funds these days, maybe they should rethink that whole “trust us! We’ll spend your money wisely” thing.
Oh, and Frank: funny thing about the site on the other end of your link. They seem to do nothing but bash democrats. Somehow that makes me wonder about the impartiality of the “reporting” you showed us… and it (as usual) does nothing to address the point that OW is tryig to make in his post.
Just another day for Publican hypocrites mired in the culture of corruption.
Yes, Tom, this is the first, and possibly, the last time, I refer to that site.
But, if, in your narrow minded perspective, that somehow taints my “reporting,” well, then, so be it. It’s not as if you believed in me until now.
And, of course, it addresses the point that the Democratic’s idea was filched from the WW II idea of Savings / War Bonds, and someone — I leave it to you to decide for yourself, as difficult as that may be for a liberal lacking a New York Times editorial (you can always rely on Oliver — you’ve certainly never disagreed with him) — thought that was not a nice thing to do.
Well, Dean has got do to something. Things are bleak.
Wow Farris, a Nov. 2005 article. That sure is topical…
Let me know when you get something from THIS YEAR.
It’s about time that the Republicans found another way to get more legal defense money into their ranks. You better believe they’ll be prepared for the next time one of their lieutenants gets hooked up in a phone-jamming scandal.
Just for you Leroy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_12
Tom: It’s hard to believe you could be so dense, verbose and wrong all at the same time.
If insulting me is what you call discussing things “civilly,” that explains why you have yet to question any of the Master’s Oliver’s opinions.
Now, perhaps you can explain why my comment is not germane to the original post, given that I have already done so, and you have merely denied that.
Me: it addresses the point that the Democratic s idea was filched from the WW II idea of Savings / War Bonds
You: (once) It … does nothing to address the point that OW is trying to make in his post.
(twice) You didn t actually address the point OW was trying to make here, either. Which you still managed to duck in your response to me
Try again, potty mouth. And, since it seems you can’t read your own mind, you may need someone to do it for you.
Gee, thanks, Frank. You have read my mind so well, and told me what opinions I have, that I don’t even need to think! Just like the rest of your corrupt Repugnicant brethren.
I never believe corrupt Publicans who catapult their propaganda here. At least you have enough rudimentary cognitive skills to be aware of it. And, as amazing as it may seem to a ditto monkey like you, I don’t agree with everything OW has to say. It must be equally amazing that I can actually still discuss those differences civilly with him, too. To a brain dead Publican shill with his lips wrapped around Putsch’s llittle soldier, that is…
A little note about reading comprehension, though: I said that makes me wonder about the impartiality of the reporting you showed us& and it (as usual) does nothing to address the point that OW is trying to make in his post. I never claimed that it was you that was “reporting”, only that you pointed the “reporting” out to the rest of his here. And that you didn’t actually address the point OW was trying to make here, either. Which you still managed to duck in your response to me. What a surpise coming from a card-carrying member of the culture of corruption…
I’m surprised that Rush got back to you with your talking points so fast. Or is it just a boilerplate blast fax giving you standard responses to the lies and hypocrisy you promote on a daily basis? I can only imagine how hard it must be to be a steaming pile of Publican corruption, and live with the knowledge that you’re a traitorous unamerican piece of dren who cares for nothing but obeying the wishes of his corrupt masters.
Maybe you can check for a Wall Street Journal editorial in order to catapult the latest Publican propaganda correctly. Or a Washington Post editorial. Or a Faux Snooze editorial. Or Rush Limbaugh’s talking points. Or Sean Hannity’s talking points. Or the latest blather from the Conservative News Network. Or any one of a gazillion sources in the overwhelmingly conservative media that america has these days. Or find a better way to take the comments thread off-topic. The talking points handed to you by the culture of corruption that you parrot around here are getting old. Maybe you can find a way to blame the Clenis for this too…
It’s too bad Democrats don’t have big oil, big pharma, and Fortune 500 companies to depend on, like the Culture of Corruption Republicans. Of course, we all know what the Culture of Corruption Republicans have to do to GET those donations……
I think the money question eventually evens out.
“Fifteen months into the current election cycle, the biggest surprise in national party-level fundraising has been the consistent advantage held by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) over the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).”
The main problem on the Dem. side is that I think people don’t truly get the value of donating in a non-presidential year and the DC Dems keep capitulating to the GOP.
Frank_D Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Tom: It s hard to believe you could be so dense, verbose and wrong all at the same time.
If insulting me is what you call discussing things civilly, that explains why you have yet to question any of the Master s Oliver s opinions.
Right back at ya, fellow potty mouth. I guess things like describing others as having a narrow minded perspective, and being a liberal lacking a New York Times editorial, and referring to me as dense, verbose and wrong all at the same time are what passes for civility amongst Publicans these days, when they speak to anyone who dares to express anything but the Publican party line.
So sorry that I have not proved to your satisfaction that I am not OW’s lapdog. Then again, I was unaware that that was a requirement. Or that you were the one who decided what the requirements are around here.
And, addressing the point (which OW makes) that Publicans are imitating Democratic strategy by pointing out that the Democrats had some inspiration for their strategy (as far as you can tell) doesn’t sound to me much like some sort of argument intended to disprove OW’s original assertion. It sounds to me like you’re saying “but they did it too!”, as opposed to trying to refute the point that the Publicans imitated the Democrats here.
Clear enough for you now? Or do you still think that you’ve been civil and polite here, and that you were making a valid argument to refute OW’s post?
I said you weren’t being polite. I have made it quite clear on many an occasion, that I am not the who starts these things. I never said I don’t respond in kind.
While, “They are doing the exact same thing” doesn’t refute what Oliver said (I was not, after all, denying it, now was I?), it is a response.
For you to say — twice — that it was not, without any explanation, was not.
Also, since collecting money is a universal for political parties, I don’t see the point in Oliver’s post at all. Is he saying that the Republicans are collecting money in imitation of the Democratics? That’s no revelation to me.
p.s. A small point, but I didn’t begin my discussion, as you did, by suggesting you were sucking someone’s dick. That’s why I called you a potty mouth. Not that you care. I was communicating with you, i.e., speaking your language.
Dean has nothing to do with the DSCC. That’s Schumer’s baby.
And the “success” of the DSCC (relative to the RSCC) has less to do with Democrats as it does with Republicans signing up to the Not One Dime mindset over the Gang of 14 and supporting Lincoln Chaffee over a more conservative candidate in RI.
Yeah, sure, Frank. You never start these things. Ever.
I would also like to point out that there is somewhat of a disconnect between this (my first comment on this thread):
(: Tom
Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 8:39 am
I think the Repugnicants were spot on with their naming – they want you to put money into GOP Funds.
Then again, the way that the borrow and spend Publicans handle taxpayer funds these days, maybe they should rethink that whole trust us! We ll spend your money wisely thing.
Oh, and Frank: funny thing about the site on the other end of your link. They seem to do nothing but bash democrats. Somehow that makes me wonder about the impartiality of the reporting you showed us& and it (as usual) does nothing to address the point that OW is tryig to make in his post.
Just another day for Publican hypocrites mired in the culture of corruption.
and this:
p.s. A small point, but I didn t begin my discussion, as you did, by suggesting you were sucking someone s dick. That s why I called you a potty mouth. Not that you care. I was communicating with you, i.e., speaking your language.
I fail to see where I used that sort of terminology until after I got some of those good ‘ol fashioned Publican descriptions of Democrats (one of which I am not) thrown in my direction.
Just a small point right back at you: you have rarely (never that I can remember offhand) been polite to anyone who doesn’t share your Publican beliefs here in the comments you have left on OW’s site. You have also directly misrepresented what I said originally in these comments, and confused some reactive insults with my original claims that Publicans are hypocritical and corrupt. Not that you care. I was communicating with you, i.e., speaking your language.
And you are still trying to throw these comments off thread. What difference does it make if the Dems updated ideas from over fifty years ago? And what does it have to do with OW’s claim that Publicans are borrowing ideas from Democrats today?
When you’re right, you’re right, Tom…
In this particular pissing contest, I pissed first.
Mea culpa
To be more than fair, you certainly over reacted…
“You have rarely (never that I can remember offhand) been polite to anyone who doesn t share your … beliefs here in the comments you have left on OW s site…”
Which is it? “Rarely” or “never”? I think you’re hedging your bet, and your memory is faulty…
Finally, your “Democratics updated ideas” somehow becomes “Republicans are borrowing ideas from Democrats”…
I thought that was just as fake when you said it, as when Oliver said it.
Nice to see the at least one conservative is acutally willing to admit that they’ve been wrong once in their lives.
To be more than fair, I responded in a similar manner to the way people like you have been slagging liberals, Democrats, and the rest of the people who don’t agree woith you. So sorry if you can dish it out, but you can’t take it…
And, it is “never” as far as I can tell, but I could really care less, so like the good progressive that I am, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and qualifying my “never” with the possibility that you have actually been nice to someone who hasn’t sworn undying fealty to Putsch and the rest of the Publicans running this country into the ground. Thanks for the gratuitous insult here, too. I am merely responding in kind. ALthough I won’t make any references to stir up your homophobia this time.
Can you try putting some sense into this:
Finally, your Democratics updated ideas somehow becomes Republicans are borrowing ideas from Democrats &
I thought that was just as fake when you said it, as when Oliver said it.
Where and when did the whole Democratics updated ideas come up again? Oh, yeah, that’s right – when you threw the comments off-topic with your “but, but – they did it, too!” noise.
Finally, are you ever going to answer any questions put to you? Whether they are politely phrased (as they were in my previous comment), or phrased in a manner similar to the way Publicans demand answers around here? Or are you just going to do your Chimperor imitation and bury your head in the sand every time?
What difference does it make if the Dems updated ideas from over fifty years ago? And what does it have to do with OW s claim that [Rep]ublicans are borrowing ideas from Democrats today?
Maybe I’m dreaming, but I’m pretty sure you said that…
Perhaps you could explain to me what a “Chimperor imitation” is, if you don’t want me to do it…
You no more want a civil discussion than a liberal wants a tax cut…
Right back at ya, Frankie baby.
You no more want a civil discussion than you or any of the rest of your Publican brethren than a conservative wants a balanced budget, or an end to the taxpayer dollars shovelled to corporate welfare queens they have supported all these years.
Perhaps that is why I am not entirely civil when I respond to the partisan Publican lies you put in your comments here.
And, of course, you still duck and weave worse than Rush Limbaugh rationalizing his drug use when someone actually asks you a real question.
A Chimperor imitation is when Publicans like you won’t answer questions asked of them (”Why did we go to war with Iraq?”), and instead answers a question that they like the answer to (”Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That s where they trained. That s where they plotted. That s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.”).
OK, I won’t do that.
And, for the record, I’m not a “publican…”
pub·li·can (pmb’l--kYn) pron. n.
1. Chiefly British. The keeper of a public house or tavern.
2. A collector of public taxes or tolls in the ancient Roman Empire.
3. A collector of taxes* or tribute from the public.
* I quit being a collector of taxes in 1988.