A heavy dose of self-righteousness is a dangerous thing. Just look at the behavior of any number of John Kerry supporters for evidence of this. In Orlando, Democrats ransacked a Bush-Cheney campaign office, drawing horns on a picture of George W. Bush (The Left doesn't believe in God, but they sure have had their fair share of devils over the years). A similar episode happened in Milwaukee on Tuesday, with a crowd of fifty invading the Republican campaign office and a leader shouting slogans through a bullhorn. In nearby Madison, Bush supporters have had their lawn signs stolen and replaced with Swastikas burned into their grass. In Knoxville, someone shot into the Bush-Cheney offices. How will these unhinged people, overflowing with indignation, react if George W. Bush wins reelection?

Listen here fools. GW will loose this election. The polls are even, and the advantage on the ground goes to Kerry. You conservative freakshows need to listen up. President Kerry will be inauguated in January. Get used to it, or get out! Move to Turkmenistan if America isn't facist enough for you!

And thank god someone wrote a Swatiska on Bush's grass. The man comes from a Nazi supporting family. Prescott Bush (gwb's grandaddy)ran an investment bank that profited from its investments in Nazi Germany. Bush is a nazi. Hitler had the Jews. Bush has the gays. Hitler had Poland. Bush has Iraq. I can't wait 'till Kerry knocks that Nazi bastard off his throne.

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE VOTING FOR THIS MAN??
WHAT KIND OF WEAK WILLED LOSERS ARE YOU??
YOU ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE FOR A MAN THAT OPPOSES GEORGE SOROS??

GEORGE SOROS IS GOD.

HE WILL ALL LEAD US TO THE PROMISED LAND.

WE MUST OBEY HIS EVERY COMMAND.

GEORGE BUSH MUST LOOSE.

Hail the blessed SOROS!!!

( What democrats would sound like if the crazy evagelicals were liberal.)

What strikes me is how much better a Kerry presidency would be than a Bush one.

Kerry will regain the respect of America's allies.

Kerry will make Iraq safer for Americans.

Kerry will invest in Renewable Energy so no more American soilders will have to die for oil.

Kerry will follow a sensible envormental policy that will clean up aour enviroment to prevent the early death of so many Americans.

Kerry will keep America safe by investing in homeland security, NOT IN IRAQ.

Kerry will regulate on the drug industry so drugs will be cheaper and safer.

Kerry will assure the fiscal security of the United States by cutting the deficit.

Try and refute these facts you brainwashed fools.

Some of them have already made plain what they will do in the event of a Bush win. Some have already declared their intention to "take it to the streets". Responsibility for the increasing violence and threats of violence can be laid directly at the door of the Democratic leadership, which has been fanning the emotional flames of their base shamelessly for months now. In addition to that, we have the insignificant political equivalent of schoolyard taunts to add to the public discourse, I'm afraid, for the duration of the campaign - as evidenced above.

How can anybody be willing to vote for a man who wants to put the fate of our national security in the hands of foreign leaders. Kerry reads all theses reports and knows what is happening on the streets. Yet do you see him trying to be the leader he says he is. I find it reprehenisible that he is basically condoning the burning of Swastikas in grass, and the other countless acts of violence that are happening. I being of Judaic faith find this whole thing beyond the statutes of human decency. No man should have to put up with these kinds of acts and I for one am for free speech, but will speak on things I am against in a formidable fashion. Yes, Bush is not for homosexuals, it is the opinion he formed while reading his holy text. I could care less, but for people to think he is the modern day Hitler is off base and vile. I think it is time for people to realize where we are and who we are. And for those who think that we should move becuase we are too facist, rethink what you just said. You may be the ones that need to move while I stay here the land of my ancestors.

DB where you been? You must have been working some OT at your job at Starbucks! You Grande non-fat mocha latte bitch! Your a walking billboard for not giving losers wedgies in grammar school. DB in 6th grade: I'll teach those fascist bastards some day! I think I made a fudge factory in my fruit o the looms! Waaaaaaawaaawaa!

LiberalLoser,

I know it's just that I take language too seriously and all, but I would like to call your attention to the fact that every one of your points states that Kerry "will" do something. This serves to state the obvious - that Kerry is, as yet in no position to do anything about any of the issues you mention. I think we can all agree on that. That being said, I wonder how you can confidently state as fact something that has not yet occurred. Doesn't a fact require some sort of recollection of a past event? Unless your enthusiasm and your confidence in Kerry has bestowed upon you an unerring precognition, your assertions have no basis in fact.

I get a kick out of these retarded liberals who call Bush a Nazi and then use Nazi tactics to discredit him.

I’m saying this seriously: I don’t think there are any sane liberals out there.

Sane Democrats, yes. Liberals? I’ve only seen them demonstrate craziness and irrationality and have shown themselves overall to be a very unbalanced group of individuals.

Just look at the previous responses: Contradictions, Lies, Erratic and Violent thought processes.

This from the group of knuckleheads who use high minded tolerance as their mantra.

You numbnuts have not risen above s$%t.

Hateful, spiteful, immature. And, oh yes, poorly educated to the facts.

Robert,

"May or may not have occurred"? - Even as you doubt press reports about anti-Bush violence, you point to an editorial in the NYT! A paper that long ago abandoned any semblance of objectivity - even in it's "hard" news stories, let alone on it's editorial page. If we can assume that the reports of voter suppression are true then they should be condemned in the most strident terms. But you will forgive us on the right if we question the um "accuracy" of the NYT. We have learned from experience to take the "paper of record" with a very large grain of salt.

Swede the Republican propaganda machine has played you like a fiddle boy! republicans tarnish the image of good newspapers likt the NYT, the Post, and the LATimes because they are the papers that most often tell the truth. Truth being anathema to republican plans, they attack them.

DB,

I know propaganda when I see it, and unlike you I'm willing to concede that it works both ways.

Of course we should be skeptical, but that does not mean everything from Fox News or the NY Times is a lie.
Many people have abandoned their objectivity in pursuit of partisanship. There have been abuses on both sides but I think the Republicans have raised misinformation and dirty tricks to an art form.
As just a few quick examples, Swiftboaters, Tom Delay tactics, 350 and now 98 votes for a tax hike by Kerry, Cheney statements on WMDs, The Kerry global statement misrepresentations by Republicans.
Incidentally I am a proud Liberal

True story: when Bush the first was running, I had a Bush for President sticker on the window of my Volvo station wagon. I drove my kid to school one day and went inside to check him in. I was in the school for about 10 minutes.

When I came out, somebody had taken a piece of broken glass and scraped the sticker off of my car. Did a nice job on the glass and surrounding paint too.

Another story of ratical liberals run amok.

Robert,

I respect your views, but the Republicans don't have a monopoly on misinformation and dirty tricks. Far from it. For example:

George Soros
Fahrenheit 911
MoveOn.org
Rumors/Charges Of Republican plans to: Reinstate the draft, put an end to Medicare and Social Security, harbor secret ambitions to harm Wisconsin dairy farmers, steal elections (past and future).
Forged Documents (TANG Scandal)
Last minute DUI revelations in 2000.
Kitty Kelly
Joe Wilson
Richard Clarke
Accusations that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand (Howard Dean, etal).
Bush cooked up the war in Texas for political purposes (Kennedy).
Bush is in league with the Saudis.
Using the 9/11 hearings for partisan assault.
Intimidate Republican campaign workers by: storming campaign headquarters, shooting out windows of same, removing or defacing signs, vandalizing property.
Virtually every Kerry policy statement.

I could go on. Do you see my point?

Swede
I see your point but the existence of George Soros and Moveon.org is not misinformation or a dirty trick. It is advocacy, not even to the extent of Richard Mellon Scaffe, Drudge or the Pat Robertson Fallwell Group.
Surly you don’t think Michael Moore, while a liberal, is in league with John Kerry.

Rumors/Charges of Republican plans to put an end to Medicare and Social Security, - These are in Republicans long term plans as stated by Newt (Dying on the vine)

Last minute DUI revelations in 2000. Fox news broke this story and it is the truth

Kitty Kelly, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke – these people are not Dem/Liberals. 2 of them worked for Bush.

GWB is in league with the Saudis. – He and his father are business partners with the Saudis.

Everything negative about Republicans isn’t a liberal plot.
I see your point. My point is strictly on evaluation of 4 years performance GWB should not be re elected.
We will differ on the issues but we can’t have 4 more years of expanding deficits due to unaffordable tax cuts and unprovoked aggression with a misdirected war that could have been avoided. Abortion, prayer in schools and homosexual marriage are great peacetime issues but not now.

Robert,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Michael Moore was given a prominent place of honor at the DNC this summer, Congressional Democrats made it a media event their leaving the hill to view this important "documentary" film. If Democrats are not "in league" with Michael Moore they certainly are not above using his lies to political advantage. The DUI? I live in Maine, and the person who leaked that story to Fox News, in the last 72 hours before the election, is a well known figure in local Democratic politics here. MoveOn.org as advocate? Yes certainly, but a 527 that has made scurrilous and unsupported charges against Bush. Nothing different from what you accuse the SwiftBoat Vets of doing. From a different view the Swift Boaters can be seen as principled veterans trying to right an old wrong. And as for four more years - I view the war on terror as an issue that trumps all others. I see Kerry's position on it as an attempt to go back to 9/10/2001, and that would be a tragic mistake we would all pay dearly for. I think there are many in this country who would agree with me if the war were not just so damned inconvenient.

Regards,

DB,

Maybe people will take you seriously when you learn to spell "lose" right. It is not "loose" moron.

Swede
If the Iraq war was a war against terrorism I would agree with you. But Saddam was in a box with no WMD or hope of getting them. Bush put us in a quagmire in Iraq where the people hate us, want us dead, without an exit strategy. This war pursued almost unilaterally will bankrupt us. UBL is still out there. Homeland security is lacking. 95% of cargo entering the US goes uninspected. The Mexican and Canadian borders are porous. Ashcroft is nowhere on the Anthrax mailers.
We are no safer now because of Iraq. We are probably less safe because 150,000 soldiers are there and not elsewhere protecting us rather than fighting for Iraqi freedom.
Nevertheless it is a pleasure to converse with a gentlemen. There is no reason we can’t exchange views in a civil manner.
Best Wishes

Robert,

Saddam was in a box, but it was beginning to come apart. Pressure was increasing in the U.N. (France, Germany, Russia, and China), and with liberals here in the U.S., to lift the sanctions. Remember all the wailing about how the U.S. and it's allies were forcing U.N. sanctions on a prostrate Iraqi people? How thousands of Iraqi children were dying for lack of medicines? Remember who was taking the blame for that? And who was doing the blaming? Even solely from a logistical point of view, sanctions could not have been maintained indefinately. It was only a matter of time before the U.N. would drop the sanctions - especially knowing now that many of those countries lobbying for end to them were effectively in Saddam's pocket. So he had every reason to hope, no expect, that he soon would be free again to re-constitute his weapons programs. And no one can believe that the world community would have had any stomach for more sanctions any time soon after that. The threat would have continued to grow; and can anyone doubt that Saddam would have been more than happy to deliver WMD to the U.S. via surrogates - if he thought he could do so without them being traced to him? In a post-9/11 world this scenario was not something a president doing his job could tolerate. We would have been compelled to take on Saddam eventually - and at much greater cost than we are experiencing today.

UBL? I'm one of those who think he is dead, but even if he isn't he has been pretty effectively neutralized. In any event, if the greatest superpower the world has ever known can't fight a multi-faceted, multiple front war and win it in this day and age then we truly are in a sad state of affairs.

I do however, agree with you that we could be doing more to protect our borders. This failure isn't so much from a lack of resources as it is a lack of political will. Both parties share responsibility for this one.

I also agree that disagreements can and should be civil, and I have enjoyed our discussions today.

Best Regards,

This whole country is now more bi-polar than me. What the hell has happened to decency? No matter WHO wins this election, we will have charges of conspiracy, yadda yadda yadda.

Can't anyone think for themselves and not get the mob mentality?

Dan, brace yourself for the next civil war.

TRY and Be well,

Sponge

In response to the NYT article above about "suppressing the Detroit vote" here is another article which illustrates that that city is still apparently rife with racial tensions since the city council is apparently run by racists.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041008-123152-7116r.htm

Most of the really militant anti-Bush people I know have a tenuous, at best, hold on reality.I have a friend who has publicly declared that he and his wife will move to Bulgaria if Bush wins. He claims the "stormtroopers" will be going from house to house, kicking in doors and terrorizing people who don't toe to the GOP line, whatever that is. It seems like the more pro-Kerry someone is, the less likely they are to use logic and reason in filtering both sides' propaganda.

I think the original issue was democrates/liberals/union thugs breaking the law and injuring people. It seems the Left is made up of intolerent "storm troopers," not the right. Where's the outrage? This not some third world country where political thugs are free to intimidate the opposition. Violence from the Left is not a new development. I recall seeing a large picture of a union thug bashing in the face of a right wiing protester in Philadephia in 1996. It's the Left that can't tolerate opposing opinions. If you can't win at the ballot box, beat 'em to a pulp. And liberals on this site call conservatives morons. Yeah, right.