Reply #80: Cocoa:

[Q]

"How anyone could assume Q wants the dems to succeed is beyond me. He only points out their failures, and ignores, denies, minimizes, and explains away any of their successes. Successes for the dems are like bitter pills to Q."

- I'm compelled to point out that you've posted several times now while completely ignoring the topic of the thread. Every one of your posts have been about my motivations and nothing about why no Senator...Dem or GOPer...would stand up for Democracy on that day. Not to worry...we're all familiar with this tactic of trying to destroy the messenger instead of addressing the message. It's SOP for RWingers.

- Bush* has been in office for three years now and even the most gullible have to admit that the Democrats have performed miserably on a majority of the issues. While the Dems have held him back on a few matters...they've caved in or kept quiet on the most important issues of our time.

- The 'bitter pill' I'm more concerned about is the SUCCESSES OF THE BUSHIES. Why are the Bushies successful in so many ways? Because they have little or no opposition and conservatives in 'our' party are sellouts to Democratic values and principles.

"Regarding the merits of the case, what is the case? If the case is that the dems are highly flawed, this is not a case, this is a truism. But that's not Q's case, his case is that the dems are the worst thing since sliced bread, and that's a totally bogus case, imo."

- It's too bad you're obsessed with hyperbole instead of the truth. My case was that no one in the US Senate stood with the CBC in a very important cause: free and fair elections. It's telling that you're more interested in my motivation than the motivations of those who failed America on Jan 6, 2001.