Reply #15: Yes, they are opposing him on all the issues that don't matter

[tom_paine]

What good is a $2/hr increase in mimumum wage without a reliable system of checks and balances or a reliable voting system or a strong Free Press, or any of the things our Free Ancestors took for granted that have all vanished (except for window-dressing and bullshit) so swiftly.

So, let the Dems do all those things which are cosmetically nice and would be wonderful in the absence of the Fall of the Old American Republic...if it wasn't happening before our eyes NOW.

In that context however, the Dems remind me of someone standing in front of their mirror in the morning, scrubbing their face and cleansing zits off while a terrible burning smell fills the room.

Oh, that's just their pajama bottoms burning, but the smell of searing flesh doesn't really seem to have the URGENCY that those pesky facial zits do.

So he/we/they burn because of a willful denial of what are the real prorities. Fiddling with zits while they burn alive, yes that is an apt analogy for the Democratic Party and it's opposition to Bushitler.

The Democratic Leadership (and I say this with great pain as I have poured more than a thousand dollars down their maw and worked more than 100 total hours for them over the last three "elections") can therefore, tweak all the benefits of enviro-regs, raise the minimum wage or anything else they want to.

But that burning flesh smell permeates them room and it is overpowering and getting MUCH worse, recently.

And our Democratic Leadership, who evidently don't give a shit if they loose a million phone-bankers and precinct-walkers as long as they can make it up with a whopping check from a rich guy (ten million dollars, you see, is equal to one million peasants and their pussy $10 contributions) are repeating THE EXACT SAME MANTRA AS THE BUSHIES:

"There is no burning happening here. There is no burning smell. Boy you moonbats are crazy! We are afraid of you because Bill O'reilly says you make us look bad."

Oh and by the way, one more little thing: If all those things you wrote are true, why did the Republics impeach Clinton when his crime wasn't even much of a crime (as opposed to lying us into a Hitler-Poland-type invasion of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of more than a million and the maiming of hundreds of thousands more) and they ALSO didn't have the votes to convict?

Why then did the Republics proceed?

If you can answer that question to your own satisfaction, perhaps then you will see why your seeming belief that pre-2000 America still exists NOW, and all your premises based upon the fact that this is just "normal politics", are faulty because your original implict premise, that the politics of America 2000 are the same as today, and we are the same nation that we were then, is so utterly incorrect.

How could any thesis of yours, Perry, which arises from such a flawed implicit original premise, have any validity itself?

But don't waste time on THAT question, yet. Focus on why the Republics felt so comfortable impeaching over a Blow Job when they didn't have the votes to convict while the DEMS are afraid to impeach even with the bloody carcasses of dozens of Felony One counts lay all about them, performed so shamelessly and openly, evidence good enough to convict is laying around EVERYWHERE.

Yet they refuse to notice, refuse to pursue it.

And the Nazis and the Bushies have taught us, The Law is NOTHING without people with the guts to enforce it.