I appreciate the responses to my posting but like JavaBlacks response the most. As to Terminator although it does appear that rota fits your characterization of "conspiracy nut" I do not. Everything I have posted is something that has been said by one or more democrats and in a national forum.
Back to JavaBlack; "What side projects the founders had has little meaning to the actual goal of the organization"
---------------
1) This I am afraid doesn't' make sense. The founder of a organization sets the goals for it and drives it toward those goals. The founder of the ACLU stated very clearly what his goals were, what his beliefs are, and the "workers" followed those. The leaders that have come after still follow those ideas set down by it's founder. Just because they don't state them the way I have does not mean they don't exist. They are smart enough to know that letting people in on their TRUE goals would not be wise.
2) Unfortunately there is not enough room nor do I have the time, as a matter of fact it is not possible, to posted ALL evidence which supports these claims. I have provided some of the most egregious. The rest you will have to find yourself.
3) The 21 points are not made up. Each one is taken from statements which have been made by democrat leaders, mostly ones in Congress. It is not difficult to find these statements if you look. They make these kinds of statements everyday although not the same way I have, of course but they mean the same thing.

4) I am under the suspicion that you are not a true liberal democrat. The liberal democrats that I refer to are those LEADERS which presumably the majority of regular democrats support. You do not seem to support many of your leaders positions. Maybe the average democrat just doesn't realize that the far left extremist HAVE taken over the democratic party. Just listen to what these leaders say. It is obvious. As a result it is valid to talk about Peta, global warming wackos, homosexuals, criminals, anti-guns nuts, and the like because, despite if you realize it or simply refuse to face it, ARE in control of the democrat party.
6) As I don't have time right now to address each of the 21 one comments you made I will just say this. These ARE beliefs of the leaders of the democrat party today and I believe that NOT because I am some conspiracy theory nut or anything like that but because I have HEARD ALL these things said by one or the other democrat leader in congress and elsewhere. These things did not originate from me but came from those leaders. You seem not to be what the democrat leaders would call a good democrat since they do believe that - NO American, other than the police and their body guards, should own a gun, that homosexuals have a right to be married and their activity is moral, that the murder of innocent helpless children is a right, that man (the conservatives) are destroying the planet, that we could stop AIDS if only we would spend enough money, that sex should be taught in school (often by perverts" rather than at home and that parents have no right to determine their own children's up-bringing, that ANYTHING the NRA does is bad, that taxes are too LOW, that we should not test or grade school children but just give them all a pass, that if you disagree with them you are evil, and finally that it is OK to do ANYTHING, legal or not, IF it is in pursuit of THEIR high goals, as was shown in their attempt in 2000 to steal the election.

A side note; I was with a number of democrats during the 2000 election and believe you me there were many heated, Ill call them debates. At one point (and this is true always) once these democrats realized they were not going to be successful when I pointed out that what the Florida Supreme Court had done (along with AL gore) was in violation of not only State law, but Federal law AND our Constitution the response I got, word for word was, and I quote "I don't give a da%%m about the laws or the Constitution, AL gore should be president. I hate Bush".

If you want to get to what a liberal democrat REALLY believes just get him or her mad enough and you WILL find out!

People often say stupid things when they're frustrated. Cognitive abilities cease when one gets too riled up.

Do you actually expect me to believe that a Democratic leader said "Teachers who cannot teach fourth graders how to read should teach about sex"?
No. All these lines are made up for humor value, poking fun at contradictions in beliefs. People don't point out, or usually even recognize those contradictions when running for office. And each one of those things has a conservative counterpart. For instance the George Carlin joke about how conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers.
That's the thing with humor. You can't argue against it without sounding like a jerk that takes everything too seriously. That's why it's used in politics so much.
What you have to face is that there are multiple sides to every issue. It is not just "You either think teachers are competent enough to teach sex" or "you think they're useless", "parents are capable" or "parents are dumb". Every issue has multiple sides.
And if you can't see the other side through a scope other than the one painted with your own distrust of it, it's difficult to say that you really know the issues.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

JavaBlack wrote: "People often say stupid things when they're frustrated. Cognitive abilities cease when one gets too riled up."
-------------------
I can understand your statement above and cannot honestly disagree with it entirely. But, nothing says that when someone says "stupid things" that those things they say are not really what they think. "Cognitive abilities" can be construed to mean "knowingly not saying what you really feel because you know the response you will probably get, and when you are not angry or drunk you know, cognitively, that making those statements may/will sound stupid". I have found over many years of involvement in politics, physiology, and law that people very often say what they really feel when they are in a state of which you describe. As a matter of fact many true confessions are obtained through fear, confusion, or anger.

JaveBlack wrote: "Do you actually expect me to believe that a Democratic leader said "Teachers who cannot teach fourth graders how to read should teach about sex"?"
------------------
Well, no. No one that I know of has stated it in this fashion. First I realize the comic relief that these 21 points present. They are comedic in substance while still providing factual information. Let us parse the example you talk about. Lets first look at the last part - "should teach about sex". Now this portion of the sentence is certainly true and has been said by many a democrat in Congress and elsewhere. I hope we can agree on that point. Democrats in power are FOR sex education in school, in elementary school, started as low as 3rd or 4th grade. Now all that is left is to evaluate is the first part of the statement -- "Teachers who cannot teach fourth graders how to read". When hearing the statements on supporting sex education I do not recall hearing included within it a suggestion that we make sure to have qualified teachers to do so. Presumably the teachers that are now "teaching" reading would be the same ones to teach sex ed. The fact of the matter is that our government run (public) education system is fatally broken. We have kids promoted to Jr. High School who cannot read. We have High School graduates who cannot fill out a job application. Now this being true we must surmise that at least one reason for this is that there are some, or maybe it is many, teachers who cannot teach kids to read. Please understand I do not condemn all teachers or even believe they are the only problem. There are many good teachers out there. But the point is that democrat leaders have pushed, and have been successful in getting sex education in our schools knowing full well that many of the kids are NOT being taught to read. Thus in effect they are saying -- we want the present teachers, including the incompetent ones, to teach sex ed REGARDLESS of the fact that they are not being taught to read. If a child is promoted to Jr. High School and cannot read it IS the teachers fault. There may be many other issues which also apply but in the end the teacher is responsible for that child's education. When democrats in power push sex ed into schools when they know many of the teachers are not even teaching many of the kids how to read they are basically saying what number 8 says.

Finally it helps to understand my point if you are aware of this -- Republicans say things like "No child left behind", "Every child deserves an education" where as Democrats say things like "We must save the public schools" or "We must do better at funding the public schools". There is a GREAT deal of difference between these statements by both political parties. The first shows a desire to educate children the later to save the liberal indoctrination system in place, typically referred to as the Public School System.

Who cares what the political parties "say"?

I care what they do.

Go ask any teacher about the effects of NCLB.

Heck, most of 'em haven't even figured out how to navigate the new guidelines yet (so their schools can continue to get funded).

One thing you can definitely say about this administration, is that it's failed miserably in every area of implementation.

These NeoCon weasels talk a good game, but when the pedal hits the metal, everything they touch turns to doo-doo.

It's really that simple. I ceased paying attention to the rhetoric a long time ago. It means exactly nothing. What counts is whether our kids are getting a better education.

My g/f Nicky is a psychologist who works with at-risk teens. Recently she fed me some information with some pretty astounding numbers in it. Part of it shows that home-schooled kids are vastly outperforming publicly educated kids in all the areas that matter (as reflected by the standardized exams, which are still necessary for college entrance and so on). The means on the SAT's differ by over a hundred points, and on the SAT-2's there's an even bigger difference.

See, this (public education) is a perfect example of an area in which the political rhetoric is completely meaningless. This admin has a very consistent pattern - they start with a great idea (or at least a reasonably good idea), and then manage to screw it up beyond recognition as it goes through the political process. And we really can't blame this one on the school boards or the teachers' unions, they're as mystified as everyone else when it comes to the new (NCLB) rules.

But the bottom line is, that the kids are the ones who suffer. Between Bushie changing the rules, and the teachers trying to figure them out, the kids end up getting the short end of the stick. And I'm sorry, but "we're still trying to figure it out" doesn't cut it.

We have a beautiful two-month old boy now, so this stuff is starting to become important to me. Assuming our young'un wants to go to college (which he probably will, he's already showing signs of superior intelligence ), there's no way on God's green earth that I'd send him to a public school. No way. Not the way things stand today.

Which means I'll have to give up the new Porsche and the six-bedroom mansion in Beverly Hills, just to get my son in the front door of a decent education. Unfortunately, I'm not one of the super-rich folks who are going to get helped out by Bushie's tax cuts in that regard.

nonsqtr wrote: "Who cares what the political parties "say"?"
--------------
Except for the above I agree with what you say. As I said the public school system is mostly ineffectual. It looks like we agree on this and all that is left is to address the above. The reason this is important is that sometimes the political parties DO what they say. I would NOT send my children to public schools either. The federal government, regardless of party in power, has NO business in the public school system. THe bad news is that they do and we seem to have no choice in the matter, other than sending our children elsewhere or teaching them ourselves, although we must still pay the taxes. At least President Bush did do, or try to do, something that makes sense, i.e. determine which schools are working and which are not by testing, the only way I know to determine how much someone has learned. Short of eliminating government schools altogether, the REAL answer, at least trying to determine which work and which don't and then helping those that do and dropping those that don't makes sense to me. The democrats however, as I stated, are more concerned with "saving public schools", that is - making sure the government runs the education system REGARDLESS of how effective it may or may not be. If you really look at the history of our public schools you can clearly see that it is the insertions of liberal agendas which has caused the demise of the school systems over the years. If research is done it is found that the liberal' s not only control which text books are used but also dictate what goes into them. They constantly rewrite history to the point that nobody really knows for sure what actually did happen. They then add all sorts of worthless subjects to be taught at the decrement of the important ones such as reading, writing, and math. They use the schools, at all levels including colleges and universities, to "create" more liberals, that is to say to try and indoctrinate, at the youngest possible age, children who they hope when they come of age to be democrat voters. This fact is indisputable.
The problem is that the statement you seem to indicate is not important is the very clue that leads one to the root cause of the problem. Until you know the true root cause of any problem you have no hope in solving that problem. Yes, unfortunately, what the parties say DO matter; if they actually follow through we very well may have a disaster (if talking about the democrats), and if they don't, as you have stated of the republicans, we still have a disaster.
You are correct, either way the children AND parents (I should say tax payers) loose.
I must comment on your very last sentence. The "super rich" were NOT the only ones helped by President Bush's tax cuts. ALL tax rates, the percentage you pay on your income, was reduced. Therefore ALL tax payers benefited. As a matter of fact the number of people, on the lower end of the financial scale, who pay NO taxes DOUBLED as a result of President Bush's tax cut. No, you did not get 10s of thousands of dollars back, because from what you have said you did not pay in 100s of thousands in taxes, but if you paid taxes YOU did get your income taxes cut. This is a documented fact. A cut of one thousand dollars to someone who makes say 75 thousand is much more of a benefit to that person then say a cut of 10 thousand to someone who makes 750 thousand. This claim by the left of "tax cuts for the rich (which by the way they never define) is one of the most bogus claims I have heard. It simply is not true and anyone can look at the IRS documents and prove this to themselves.

April 06, 2006; Legislation approved Wednesday by the California Senate Judiciary Committee

If passed by the legislature, "SB 1437 means goodbye to textbooks that say you're either a boy or a girl, or that marriage is only for a man and a woman, or that the natural family is a father, a mother and their children".

The measure would also lead to "radical curriculum changes that include transvestite speakers and transsexual videos, classroom handouts on sex-change operations and curriculum that tells children homosexual 'marriage' is normal". "This bill is frightening for parents who want trustworthy schools, not schools that sexually indoctrinate their own children -- children as young as kindergarten!"
Thomasson, who had testified against the measure, held a news conference with concerned families at the state capitol in Sacramento before the Senate Judiciary Committee vote. The resulting tally had all three Democrats on the four-member committee supporting the measure.
----------------
THIS is what I have been talking about and SHOULD scare the H##L out of evrey American!

Howad Dean, the elected leader of the democrat party ----
(From HIS website)

1) Under no circumstances abandon the public schools. (Nov 2002)
-------------
"UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES" should we even consider abandoning the government school system, EVEN if NO child receives an education. That is what "under NO circumstances" means

2) "Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings."
"I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do."
"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
-------------------
Hypocrisy at it's highest level. And these are the people who run or wish to run the government schools.

3) MR. RUSSERT: In your home state of Vermont, there's a vacancy for the United States Senate about to occur. Bernie Sanders, the congressman from Vermont, wants to run for that seat. He is a self- described avowed socialist.

DR. DEAN: Well, that's what he says. He's really a populist.
-------------
So Howard Dean knows what this guy is and he doesn't. Amazing!

MR. RUSSERT: But is there room in the Democratic Party for a socialist?

DR. DEAN: Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really.

MR. RUSSERT: He...

DR. DEAN: He hasn't said that for a while.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, he has a--he wrote in his book: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist."

DR. DEAN: Well, a Democratic socialist--all right...

MR. RUSSERT: So you'd support him?

DR. DEAN: We may very well end up supporting him. We need to work some things out because it's very important for us not to split the votes in some of the other offices as well.
-------------
Supports a self announced socialist. As I have stated, the democrat party has MANY more socialist then most realize. He is certainly not the first, far from it.

Now I could be wrong, but aren't Republicans and Conservatives the ones that are in control of this country and have been for quite some time. Democrats hold no real power in this country anymore, the other party does. So if this country is on a downhill course shouldn't we be looking at those in power, just one mans opinion. Peace.

Frankly I find it funny that the rabid cons will yell "states rights!" but then consistently attack California for leftist politics. So California is leftist? Don't live there if you don't like it. And leftists shouldn't live in Utah if they're that worried about it.

Still, the thing I find most humorous about a lot of the posts here is that:
one Democrat says or does something.
Suddenly it's ALL Democrats who have that opinion.

Dean's been known to go off on psycho emotional ramblings. That's his appeal. He's the left-wing equivalent of the right-wing pundits. I think it's dumb, but it looks good to young liberals. Kind of like how inflammatory right-wing rhetoric appeals to little baby cons.

A majority of the Crat Party leaders pays little but lip service to the farleftists, focusing more on moderates, civil libertarians, and the working class. Thus they seem to stand for nothing- since these groups have little in common.
For some reason the Pubs have been better at bringing together the holyfolk and the business people as a solid group... usually using the Crats as a common enemy. But that will eventually be reversed, most likely the Crats will move a bit right on a couple issues and snag away part of the Pub base.
Unless they're incompetent... which might be true.

In the meantime, these wierd little tidbits do not describe a majority of Crats nor is there actually a 21-oath requirement for Crat candidacy.

And to get back to that thing about the ACLU...
Say I start an organization dedicated to the advocacy of fisherman's rights... Does it automatically become also dedicated to civil liberties, campaign finance laws, and election reform simply because I am for those things? No. That would be dumb business and I'd alienate some who would help my cause. I'd use other organizations for those things.
Is there synergy for the ACLU founder? Yes. By protecting free speech, he protects his rights to speak out as a communist... As a side effect he protects your rights to speak out against communism. But the ACLU isn't designed as a communist organization.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

superbadbrutha; Thanks for the response. Yes, you could be wrong and I am afraid that you are. First the republicans do NOT have complete unlimited control over this country. Second the Democrat's have hardly lost all power. They, the democrats, seem to be able to stop judges, stop the tax cut from being permanent, stop any progress on Social Security, etc. The problem is that the republicans say many things that are indeed correct but when it comes to implementing them, to defending them, they coward in a corner. They are basically cowards with absolutely no back bone, with a few exceptions such as President Bush.
One other thing that I have tried to explain to a room full of people on several occasions is that what a president does, or congress does, more often than not, does not cause any visible effect to the general population at large for quite sometime, many times for years. The majority of the problems we have today were created during the 90s, and the rest since by republicans who have NO guts to fight for what is right.