As I have observed the actions and writings of Democrats since the Presidential Coup,
I am struck at how the Democrats want it both ways.

They want to be able to bash, blame and criticize Nader voters and Greens (who are not as monolithic a
block as even their so called party of diversity is), yet they want our support for their future platform
and candidates.  They want us to repent, disavow our immaturity and egotistical behavior, get a grip on
reality, be rational, and vote for all the same flawed, corrupt and tired reasons that they do.
But they won't let up just a little and admit that maybe we have valid perceptions and positions,
and also maybe a clearer view of reality and the big picture than they do.

Your "valid perceptions and positions" gave us President Gilligan.
You're not even sorry about that - you're bragging about how effective you were.
Yes, we want you to stop it.
 

The Dems want humanistic, inclusive, social progressive candidates and laws passed with the aid of
corporate money, PAC money, soft money, illegal and/or questionable fund raising.

You want us to fight the GOP's $190,000,000 with smiles and good intentions?
In what happy world is money a non-issue?
 

They want to be inclusive, except when it comes to third party candidates and threats to their exclusive power.

Already, I can tell this is a copy-and-paste job.
Whose lines are you reading? Who wrote that last line?
What does that last sentence mean, and please don't send me a URL or quote somebody.
Tell me what YOU think it means.
That's Question #1.
 

They want to be humanistic, except when their President feels it is manly to bomb downtown Baghdad
with a few cruise missiles.  Or when they want to continue repression by other means in South America
with a "drug war".

Oh, horseshit.
When Saddam threatens the world's oil supply, he must be stopped.
Is this more of that "smiles and good intentions" world you're trying to sell?
Explain to me how you'd handle Saddam, if not by force, and again, no URLs or quotes.
That's Question #2.

You know I'm for legalizing drugs, but voters are too stupid to solve the problem.
Any candidate who suggests solving the drug problem will get 3 percent of the vote.
 

They want to be socially progressive by passing NAFTA, GATT and World Bank loans that ruin
entire countries and impoverish their citizens to benefit bankers and corporations.

Again with somebody else rhetoric.
How can you feel so passionate about something you can't explain?
Are your reading from Michael Moore's web site?

 
They want support for a candidate that voted for the two Extreme Court justices that overturned his own
election.  The candidate that gaveled down courageous vote fraud protesting members of the Congressional
Black Caucus while no other Dem Senators supported them.  (Do they think we are crazy?)

A. Nobody knew until November 2000 that the whore judges were for sale.
     At least I didn't.  I thought the Supreme Court wasn't for sale until 9 months ago.
B. I'll give you that one.  The Democrats are the party of sleepy cowards.
 

They want Greens and Independents to support the same party that they daily (and accurately) de-cry as pink
tutu wearing cowards, expecting us to desert the one person in the last presidential race who was actually
a public servant, flawed, yes, but who actually spent most of his life trying to make the lives of US and
world citizens (anti-nuclear movement) better.

We want you to work with us to stop the Bush Family Evil Empire.
One problem you have is you're so busy wanting to win, you don't care if Bush takes over.
If Nader wants to make a difference, why doesn't he run for an office he has a chance to win?
 

Did he make some money with investments?
Yes he did, apparently legally.
Did Hillary your hero make some money on a commodity investment,
on which she apparently fronted no cash of her own?  Yes.
Is there a difference between the investors?  We think so.

ha ha

Why, Rush, I didn't know that conviction had come in.
Bill and Hillary are the most investigated people in history,
and what proof of wrongdoing has surfaced?
That's Question #3.

The GOP says they see "troubling things" in the Clinton's past.
It's enlightening that you see things their way.
Are you sure Bush got in accidentally?
If you're this anti-Clinton and anti-Gore, maybe we're wasting time.
...and why no mention of the Clinton Body Count?

You've got plenty of bad things to say about the Democrats,
but I haven't heard a word against Bush yet - why is that?
That's Question #4.
 

Is Ralph Nader (or any other Green or Independent) worse than Al Gore, Bill or Hillary Clinton?

Yes.
Al, Bill and Hillary have all won elections.
Nader is a egomaniac and a fraud.
 

We do not think so.  Can he win an election?  Eventually, yes, if people work to change the system.
Voting Democrat is not changing the system.

Gee, if Chinaco voters become a majority of the electorate, I could be president.
The trick is the word "IF."

Nader got 1/7 of the votes Perot got.
Do you understand numbers?
Or is this more of that "We'll fight their $190,000,000 with smiles and good intentions?"
By the way, are you Catholic?
 

So this is bigger than Ralph, and the blame game the Dems are playing targets people with more integrity,
courage and thoughtful consideration of their county's present and future than the Dems have--many of us
have decided not to go backwards.

Karl Rove is smiling right now.
His biggest worry is who to install after Jeb's two terms.
 

The Dems should admit that they put forth a very flawed candidate into an extremely flawed system.  And
that despite the fact that that candidate won the election, a partner in the Coup is sitting in the White House.

ha ha
Yeah, the Dems need to get real...
 

This should wake them up to the fact that our electoral system, from funding, to exclusion of non-Dem and
Rethug candidates, to voting and counting fraud, needs massive overhaul and change.  You are one of the
controlling parties—do something constructive and quit crying about Nader and the Greens.

Do you think having Bush in the White House makes reform closer or farther away?
That's Question #5.
Hint: Here's where Nader says "Everyone but me is corrupt," but I'm asking what YOU think.
 

One Republican senator showed more courage than your millions, when he stood up and changed the Senate,
despite threats to his life.  The Dems could learn from him, and from the Greens and Independents—but
they can no longer have it both ways.

As far as I'm concerned, the choices are Bush in the White House or not.
I don't like the last choice your party made.
 

George the Chimp should be the last president of his type in the White House.  Put your own house in order,
then join with us to impeach the Supreme Thugs and evict the Resident.

I hear you talking, but you're not apologizing for George the Chimp.
You're threatening us with a second Bush term unless we vote for Mister Three Percent.
That's not going to happen, ever, and I'm not too wild about blackmail, either.

Nader isn't the answer - he's George Bush's best friend.