Michael Moore Threatens Democrats

[Nash]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Whether or not the Democrats adopt a radical agenda as part of their platform in the upcoming elections is another matter.

Actually Shuckins.... opposition to the war isn't radical. More people are opposed to it than are for it. That makes being pro-war more radical than being anti-war.

So.... what exactly is so radical about the Democrats' stance on it? That's right. It isn't radical at all.

You'll catch up one day I'm sure. In the meantime, thanks for playing.

[Shuckins]

Nash,

You're so busy trying to bust on me that you miss the point entirely.

Perhaps I didn't state my points clearly enough.  

Adopting a leftist agenda and allowing the radical left to frame the debate has killed the democrats at the polls.

The perception that Clinton pandered to the left-wing of his party ended Democratic control of Congress.  They've been struggling to get it back ever since, with little success.

While you inferred that I consider the war issue to be a radical one, which it is not, you can at least admit that it is a volatile issue;  a two-edged sword that can cut both ways.  If the Democrats don't handle it correctly, they may end up falling on it.

Why don't you lay off the personal jibes bud...that's for junior high kids.

[Nash]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you somehow.

Originally posted by Shuckins
Adopting a leftist agenda and allowing the radical left to frame the debate has killed the democrats at the polls.

What world are you living in? Bush is at 33% approval, and the Dems lead in the generic Congressional ballot 55-37.

So..... Where oh where are the Democrats getting killed in the polls? Help me out with this - because from where I sit, the exact opposite seems to be the case.

You call it the "radical left," but there's nothing "radical" about it whatsoever when it is embraced by more people than embrace the right.

One might say that the Republicans are the "radicals" - and that'd be a waaaaay easier thing to demonstrate (stem cells, abortion, Iraq, budget defecits, Social Security, education, corporate givaways, k-street - all at odds with the majority.)

Now, why you are yelping about the "radical left" is beyond me..... but I guess anyone left of you (the majority of Americans) is "radical."

CT was a referendum on a Democrat who continually undercut his party. He faced an election and with record turn-out, got the boot. This isn't radical, it's democracy. Why do you hate democracy?

[Toad]

Nash, you MUST be deliberately missing the point that both I and Shuckins have voice.

I don't think you're thick, so it has to be deliberate.

Tell you what; just wait until the 2008 elections. I think what Shuckins and I are saying will be obvious even to the most casual observer.

[lazs2]

nash... moore is hurting the party.... sean penn and all the "artists" are hurting the party....  the angry biggoted "black leaders" are hurting the party...

yet.. the dumbocrats are stuck with having their smiling $400 haircut mugs right up there having their pictures taken with these whackjobs.

yep.. the average American (not canadian) looks at those pics and is disgusted.

pretty soon the only people to vote for democrats will be colored, teachers and gays.   Not enough of a base.  

The fact that canadians and your-0-peeans come on here and gush over the democrats is also enough for most reading this board to not vote for em.

I say that you are hurting the democrats on this board.   I know you don't believe that so it is even more (no pun intended) fun to watch.

lazs

[lukster]

It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note to the Democrats about Michael Moore


"It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore"

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=197

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Nash, you MUST be deliberately missing the point that both I and Shuckins have voice.

I don't think you're thick, so it has to be deliberate.

Tell you what; just wait until the 2008 elections. I think what Shuckins and I are saying will be obvious even to the most casual observer.

I must be deliberately missing the point that you and Shukins have voiced? There's nothing deliberate about it, because you haven't made any point whatsoever. You claim that the Democrats drag out nutball, extreme and crazy ideas, and when pressed to give an example, say "if you see Democrats (do something), then you'll know."

And now to drive that so-called point home in your last post, you yet again say "just wait until the 2008 elections."

Shukins on the other hand didn't even have his facts straight, let alone make any kind of point.

So I guess if your point has something to do with crystal balls and misinformation then yeah, I can kind of see your point. Just like I can kind of see a bug-like alien eating an umbrella in a blob of ink on a piece of paper.

Lazs...... well, he just kind of says the same thing over and over again, under some wild delusion that the Democrats are falling all over themselves to get their picture taken with Moore and Penn or something. I guess if that's true we must then assume that Republicans are falling all over themselves to get their picture taken with, oh, Coulter, Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, G. Gordon Liddy and Sun Myung Moon. Right?

The fact is that there are the fringes on both sides (and I would argue that the Right's fringes make the Left's look like apple pie and flags and baseball and Main Street USA but that's another thread). Nevertheless, both sides have them. Must it follow that the parties perfectly mirror those fringes? No it does not. Although, once again, I could argue that when it comes to actually acting on the desires of those fringes, such as deceiving a nation into a fiasco of a war based on "fringe" neocon ambitions or convening a special session of the Senate to involve themselves into the personal affairs of the Schiavos, the Right does seem more apt to act on those fringe desires. But hey, that's just me. And another thread.

It is incorrect and lazy (and still undemonstrated) to lay Lieberman's defeat at the feet of Moore. He did not campaign with Lamont, did not fundraise for him, this race received national coverage yet Moore was nowhere to be seen.

So what's happening is that the right wingers here seem to be grasping at straws trying to make heads or tails of Lieberman's defeat, winding up with the ridiculous notion that it somehow must have had something to do with Moore. Natch.

The fact remains that the Iraq war is wildly unpopular in CT (and the nation), and Lieberman supports it. Social Security reform is unpopular and Lieberman supports it. Bush is unpopular, and Lieberman supports him. Alito was unpopular with the Democrats, and Lieberman supported him. The list really does go on.

Yet....lets ignore that... it's Michael Moore's fault. And to be against the war means that you are "extreme." There, that solves everything. Now watch this drive!

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nash
The fact is that there are the fringes on both sides (and I would argue that the Right's fringes make the Left's look like apple pie and flags and baseball and Main Street USA but that's another thread).

It's all about perspective. I'll take the right loonies over the left just about every time. Bottom line remains the vote. When it comes to politics there's little else one can do. So Connecticut voted the war.They were already a hard core democrat state and too small too make a real difference in the status quo.

[Shuckins]

Just got back on this morning Nash...and I see that you totally misunderstood what I meant when I stated that adopting a leftist agenda has killed the Democrats at the polls.

I wasn't talking about the opinion polls.  You should have caught that but you didn't.

I was talking about the ballot box...the only poll that counts.  The Democrats have been taking a licking in Congressional elections ever since 1994.  Volatile left-wing issues have been the bane of the Democrats since that time.

Clinton was warned by leaders in his own party not to push for the assault-weapons ban to be tacked on to the crime bill of 1993.  These men knew that tremendous pressure was being brought on members of the House not to vote for it.

Clinton didn't listen.  The bill had been derailed in committee.  In an effort to save face, Clinton called in many congressmen to his office for personal talks to secure their votes.  He pulled out all the stops...got the votes he needed...and almost doomed his presidency.

In his tome "My Life" Clinton admitted the following in a moment of candor:

"The NRA had a great night.  They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen.  Foley was the first speaker to be defeated in more than a century.  Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it.   The NRA was an unforgiving master:  one strike and you're out.  The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the 24 members on its hit-list.  They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker."

Note...this is one of the few times Clinton ever admitted personal responsibility for this debacle.

The first year that Clinton was in office he pandered to such left-wing interests...after the election of 1993, the whole aspect of his presidency changed.  He began to distance himself...at least publicly...from the left-wing cronies who had pushed much of his 1993 agenda.


The war is that kind of issue as well.  It may be that the Democrats can make some hay out of it, but a LOT of them voted for it.  They've got to convince their constituents they didn't really MEAN IT when they cast their votes in support of the invasion of Iraq.  They've got to be able to convince their constituents that they have a viable PLAN to end it...not just a vague and spineless "We're gonna pull out as quickly as possible."

As I said...it could easily blow up in their faces.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Nash
I must be deliberately missing the point that you and Shukins have voiced? There's nothing deliberate about it, because you haven't made any point whatsoever. You claim that the Democrats drag out nutball, extreme and crazy ideas, and when pressed to give an example, say "if you see Democrats (do something), then you'll know."

And now to drive that so-called point home in your last post, you yet again say "just wait until the 2008 elections."

Shukins on the other hand didn't even have his facts straight, let alone make any kind of point.

So I guess if your point has something to do with crystal balls and misinformation then yeah, I can kind of see your point. Just like I can kind of see a bug-like alien eating an umbrella in a blob of ink on a piece of paper.

Lazs...... well, he just kind of says the same thing over and over again, under some wild delusion that the Democrats are falling all over themselves to get their picture taken with Moore and Penn or something. I guess if that's true we must then assume that Republicans are falling all over themselves to get their picture taken with, oh, Coulter, Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, G. Gordon Liddy and Sun Myung Moon. Right?

The fact is that there are the fringes on both sides (and I would argue that the Right's fringes make the Left's look like apple pie and flags and baseball and Main Street USA but that's another thread). Nevertheless, both sides have them. Must it follow that the parties perfectly mirror those fringes? No it does not. Although, once again, I could argue that when it comes to actually acting on the desires of those fringes, such as deceiving a nation into a fiasco of a war based on "fringe" neocon ambitions or convening a special session of the Senate to involve themselves into the personal affairs of the Schiavos, the Right does seem more apt to act on those fringe desires. But hey, that's just me. And another thread.

It is incorrect and lazy (and still undemonstrated) to lay Lieberman's defeat at the feet of Moore. He did not campaign with Lamont, did not fundraise for him, this race received national coverage yet Moore was nowhere to be seen.

So what's happening is that the right wingers here seem to be grasping at straws trying to make heads or tails of Lieberman's defeat, winding up with the ridiculous notion that it somehow must have had something to do with Moore. Natch.

The fact remains that the Iraq war is wildly unpopular in CT (and the nation), and Lieberman supports it. Social Security reform is unpopular and Lieberman supports it. Bush is unpopular, and Lieberman supports him. Alito was unpopular with the Democrats, and Lieberman supported him. The list really does go on.

Yet....lets ignore that... it's Michael Moore's fault. And to be against the war means that you are "extreme." There, that solves everything. Now watch this drive!

I have read and re-read all of this....and the thread mainly.

Where exactly is the part about "Blaming" Moore for libermans defeat?

I see Moore saying the rest of the Dems better get on board with his idea of opposing the war or suffer the same fate as Lieberman.

I sure must have missed the part that in this thread where Moore was "blamed" for libermans defeat. I'll re-read it again tho just to make sure.

Oh and the part above about Apple Pie and Main street USA and Baseball and "Flags"....Take the flag part out. There being burned down at the Local ACLU.

[Toad]

Yes, and your post is proof you've missed it.

You're the red herring king; you're talking about things that were never said. Redtop beat me to it, but the Moore thing is the example. Nobody has put Lieberman's defeat at the feet of Moore. The comments are all about the effect of Moore making the threat to other Democrats post election. You have clearly missed the point of the whole discussion or, as usual, you are turning it to the things you wish to expound via the red herring.

Deny there is a loony left to the Democratic party all you like. It doesn't change the fact that it exists.

If the Democrats pander to their loons, and they usually do when they are confident of a cakewalk, they may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

That's it for me here. It really isn't worth discussing anything with you anymore Nash. Sad to say but it's true.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
You're the red herring king; you're talking about things that were never said.

As did you.

But I guess it's all good for you to be able to go off and start talking about the "loony lefties" and how Democrats drag out "every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet," and something called a "Democratic Gay Pride parade" but Whoah!..... Lookout!... because if someone decides to call you on your wingnuttery and asks for, you know, actual examples, you'll not only refuse to offer any but decide to take your little ball and go home.

Excuse me for talking about Moore within the context of the CT election in a thread about Moore and the CT election. And excuse me for not taking your brilliant little piece of advice regarding the "loony lefties" and the Democrats' "nutbag ideas," "crazy proposals" and "extremist viewpoints" in the spirit of the best of intentions that you undoubtedly offered it. What was I thinking?

What an arresting display of care and concern. How generous of you to offer it.

Uh.... yeah. Anyways...

Democrats should be so worried about the lunacy of Michael Moore. I mean, he writes in a blog on the internets and makes a movie every few years. And he is soooo powerful that in one fell swoop, cancels out the cumulative effect of Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell, Coulter, Gingrich, O'Reilly, Liddy, Pat Robertson, FOX News, North, Sun Myung Moon, Malkin, and all of those un-loony folks on the right who reach millions upon millions of viewers/listeners every single day - distilled each day in one form or another on this fine BBS for us to read.

Why oh why(!) aren't the Democrats taking the Right's advice on this?! Less loonies! More..... loonies?

It's hilarious, frankly, that Moore and Spicoli and (who else?) Jane Fonda seem to be the demons to the right wingers. Is that really all you can point to? If that's the case then, honestly folks, it's rather sad.

Anyways, it's getting late and I better start wrapping this up. Toad? You're probably better off not trying to discuss anything with me. Judging by this thread, other folks seem to be way more up your alley:

Everytime I see the name "Michael Moore" for some reason I need to take a crap.

Joe sixpack is turned off by the parade of losers who are supported and support the democrats.

I flat out REFUSE To give this fat f**k the attention he craves.

Which to me translates..... I want to set on my dead beat *** and let the US take care of me and my lame non working sorry pos life.

Any one that would vote or want Hillary in office is a complete moron and idiot. IMO

Moore is the defacto leader of a VERY large organization, who just rightly pointed out that he has the power to remove elected officials from office whom he doesnt like..

The problem for democrats is that so many americans (you know.. the ones who vote) see the democrat party as the party of moore. that, to them..... moore is the party... the smug, fat, city dwelling slob who looks down his food stained chins at everyone else.

Yup....

Enjoy.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Toad
Yes, and your post is proof you've missed it.

You're the red herring king; you're talking about things that were never said. Redtop beat me to it, but the Moore thing is the example. Nobody has put Lieberman's defeat at the feet of Moore. The comments are all about the effect of Moore making the threat to other Democrats post election. You have clearly missed the point of the whole discussion or, as usual, you are turning it to the things you wish to expound via the red herring.

Deny there is a loony left to the Democratic party all you like. It doesn't change the fact that it exists.

If the Democrats pander to their loons, and they usually do when they are confident of a cakewalk, they may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

That's it for me here. It really isn't worth discussing anything with you anymore Nash. Sad to say but it's true.

Nobody has put Lieberman's defeat at the feet of Moore, but Moore and Moveon.org are taking credit for it, partly by giving Lamont $250,000, partly by threatening all those who support Lieberman and/or don't get with the program

[Toad]

There is nothing to discuss with you Nash, simply because you now carry on conversations with yourself.

You have become a caricature of those you attack.

[RedTop]

Nash,

I thought of something that gave me great joy when reading your oh so high and mighty post there.

You don't live in the U.S.. (I believe that I understand that to be the case)

You sound alot like Sam Cedar , Gafaffalo , Moore , Malloy , Springer , Sarandon , Bottoms , Penn , Colmes , Dean (alot ) , Pelosi , Kerry , Murtha , Boxer ,  I could go on and on.

Later...enjoy the snow.