If God loves America HE'll make Hillary the next president

a listen to Keith Olberman and tell me again that some conservatives are haters while liberals aren't. Or perhaps even Sen. Reid saying that global warming caused the fires in CA. Is telling lies hateful?

I've never seen Olberman. I don't have cable. I'm not talking about the type of thing Reid says. I'm talking about a man on the radio who is screaming hate. There's a difference.

Is telling lies hateful? Yes. You've got Reid. I've got Hannity.

tell me the lies of Hannity. Or barring that perhaps you can expand on what Hannity or Beck say that is "screaming hate".

If someone is speaking facts is that considered hate to you?

So God would want to return obviously corrupt people to the White House? A man who sexually abuses women, lies in court, and a she-man who wants to take more of our earnings and decide how to distribute it?

I've never heard hateful words from Glenn Beck, he's a nice guy! If telling the truth about people like Hillary Clinton is hateful, then maybe you just can't handle knowing the real Hill. For instance, there was the time when she went to Ground Zero right after 9-11 and complained about how her expensive designer shoes got dirty. Nice priorities! Or pretending to talk like a Southern black as though they were too dumb to understand or whatever.

Seriously, her plans sound eerily ripped from Karl Marx. And you know what happens to societies that imitate socialist ideals, right? Economic stagnation, collapse... tyrants and murderers take control... and like in Cuba, North Korea, China, the USSR, etc... everyone is equal -- equally poor and miserable.

Okay, if that's what ya want!

From what I remember about moveon.org it was founded by a young couple who made their millions inventing a toaster screensaver. It was founded on the idea that the country should move on after the attempted trial of Bill.

It soon developed that there was a market for an internet based grass roots organization. It eventually brought together hundreds of thousands people from across America who were willing to contribute ten to twenty dollars or more to further ideas in which they believed. Then this type of grass roots organization broke for Howard Dean - I'm not sure how much moveon was the front runner in that or just a player. I assume it also broke for Kerry and then played a large part in rooting out conservatives in 2006.

Now I know for a fact that moveon made its name historically as a grass roots organization. Anyone who says or implies that moveon was not historically grass roots is a LIAR.

I assume that this this hasn't changed, since I think that the hundreds of thousands of people who make up moveon would be upset if one person took over the direction of the movement. So, I'm assuming that anyone who says or implies that moveon is not currently a grass roots organization is a LIAR.

Now, all of a sudden and I don't know how or why it started, conservatives are claiming, what? That moveon is under the control of George Soros? That George Soros has contributed more personally to moveon than all the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of individuals that contribute small amounts to moveon? That is is perhaps the largest single contributor to moveon?

You might explain to me just where this came from, i.e., who authored this claim, whatever the claim is. But I say to you Flame I am confident that the major character of moveon is a grass roots organization which is not controlled nor dominated by a single person. I say to you, Flame, that anyone who says or implies that George Soros dominates moveon is a LIAR.

America is a Welfare State because most Americans in recent history want a Welfare State.We live in a democracy and democracy has worked to make America a Welfare State.

Hannity does an interesting thing these days. He strings together "George Soros, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ted Kennedy, moveon.org into one Germanized word, designed to touch all the emotional hot buttons of his audience, as though they are all identical.

Conservatives use "socialist and communist" as pejoratives and call George, Ted, Hillary, Bill and me socialist and communist without reference to the history of the Welfare State in America and without reference to how we describe ourselves.

This is a LIE. Anyone who calls me - a PROUD LIBERAL - a socialist or communist is a LIAR and they know they are a LIAR.

Now, such a person might argue that by their definition I am a socialist or communist. But, if so, they are really arguing for the truth of RELATIVISM, which conservatives otherwise hate. Or they are arguing for their own omnipotence, moral and intellectual superiority in which they are always right and God is always on their side.

Someone who calls me a socialist is either arguing for relativism or hubris. Which is it, Flame?

Heard Hannity allude to the "Clinton/Gore Recession" today. Bet you a dollar to a donut that if there is a recession after Hillary gets in Hannity won't be referring to is as the Bush Recession.

Hannity could have called it the "Greenspan Recession." Didn't Bush and company fiddle with the way recessions are counted, introducing "Dynamic Accounting" in order to displace the blame?

Now, I don't think that any president should be blamed as the only agent for a recession. But it's clear that Hannity was trying to stir up the emotions of his listeners, hitting their hot buttons, enabling them to enjoy the emotion of vindictiveness by calling it the Clinton Gore recession. That's a definition of a demagogue.

PL, economists were noting the recession activity during the Clinton administration but Gore and Co kept right on saying the economy was going great. I am sorry that you believed the Clinton lies during Gore's campaign. If you actually listened to Hannity, you would find that he disagrees with many of Bush's positions on issues.

Socialism has been defined for ages. The current direction and policies of the liberals are in accord with the definition of socialism. You yourself have said that the Constitution does not have any meaning. That shows that representative republic (democracy) is not your agenda although you try to justify your position by using it in your argument. Now that is relativism, the Constitution is relative only when you want to use it for an argument but it is not relative to your personal position.