Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on August 09, 2006, 10:07:38 PM
-
hehe this killed me...little general brewing here
Michael Moore Threatens Democrats
Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, following the Connecticut primary defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman, issued a direct threat to his fellow Democrats: Denounce the war in Iraq or you’ll get what Joe got.
In a letter to his Web site visitors, which served as fertilizer for blogs everywhere, Moore raged that Ned Lamont’s anti-war victory was the beginning of a revolution among liberals.
Writes Moore on his Web site: "Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.”
Moore referenced the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket – John Kerry and John Edwards – as two Democrats who voted for the war who have now "seen the light,” but because they "sided with Bush . . . may never enter the promised land.”
Moore saved his most pointed criticism for Sen. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner for the presidency in 2008.
"To Hillary . . . You will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe [Lieberman] have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?”
-
Everytime I see the name "Michael Moore" for some reason I need to take a crap.
He keeps me "Regular" I guess.
Hillery/Moore '08
:aok
:rofl
Must not tease Democrats....
Mac
-
52% to 48%
ppffft....
So when Joe wins the senate seat as an independent what message does that send out?
-
As often said, the Democrats need to find an agenda. Maybe the have. Maybe the war in Iraq is "the issue".
Bush and the GOP won because they were more trusted to handle security issues than the Democrats.
The Democrats can't change the subject or try to shift the attention to economic, environmental or any other of their weak assed "key issues". Maybe they realize it. Maybe they are going to grow some balls and take national security head on without being wishy washy or vague or ambiguous.
We'll soon see.
-
Originally posted by soda72
52% to 48%
ppffft....
So when Joe wins the senate seat as an independent what message does that send out?
It sends out the message that the Democrats don't have a clue and that Lieberman was right all along.
I predict that if Lieberman wins the DNC will be implode.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As often said, the Democrats need to find an agenda. Maybe the have. Maybe the war in Iraq is "the issue".
Bush and the GOP won because they were more trusted to handle security issues than the Democrats.
The Democrats can't change the subject or try to shift the attention to economic, environmental or any other of their weak assed "key issues". Maybe they realize it. Maybe they are going to grow some balls and take national security head on without being wishy washy or vague or ambiguous.
We'll soon see.
It could happen.
-
That WOULD be the correct thing to do....but's it's been 8 months since Schumer announced there would be a master plan.... still no alternative to GOP, except, "they messed up Iraq". Perhaps some focus groups will tell them what to think, and what a correct alternative would be for Iraq, other than simply up and leaving, which polls poorly outside of Hollywood.
-
*Shhhhhhhh Dammmmit*
Reviewing John Kerrys Plan.....
Mac
-
I strongly suspect Moore will wear out his welcome with the DNC long before the elections and will be given the order of the boot.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
*Shhhhhhhh Dammmmit*
Reviewing John Kerrys Plan.....
Mac
I would like to check that out when your done. I have no idea what it was.
-
Translation: Mickey Mouse threatens Pluto.
:)
-
No wonder the dems want to register as many illigal aliens as possible to vote...
Joe sixpack is turned off by the parade of losers who are supported and support the democrats.
Was listening to a high up in the democratic committee and he was saying that illegals were the real core of the new democrat because they were the most interested in "human rights" (read socialism) and that they were most interested in a "level playing field".
lazs
-
Who was the audience of that speech?
-
I flat out REFUSE To give this fat f**k the attention he craves.
-
Originally posted by moot
Who was the audience of that speech?
Revor
-
the sticking point it the majority of Americans see the Iraq war as what it is, as part of the war on terror
the other issue is indecision - most Americans do not want a leader who is always changing their stand on the most important issue facing this country today - terrorism
“we were against the war before we were for it which was before we were against it again” - LOL
glad to hear from mooran again - just confirms what the dems really stand for - not much of anything these days
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the sticking point it the majority of Americans see the Iraq war as what it is, as part of the war on terror
Interesting concept considering the majority of Americans (60% to be exact) oppose the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, 50% of Americans believe Iraq had WMD or the capability to produce them, so it's entirely possible there are sizable numbers of Americans who see the Iraq war according to your definition.
the other issue is indecision - most Americans do not want a leader who is always changing their stand on the most important issue facing this country today - terrorism
You speak with such authority about what America is, wants and sees. Are you sure terrorism is the most important issue facing the country?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Are you sure terrorism is the most important issue facing the country?
yes - I believe it is
as I have stated before, all they are trying to do is throw the economy into a depression. we will handle the rest of our destruction
I do not think that is a hard goal to accomplish given the house of cards we call the stock market these days & the number of others who want nothing more than to see the US knocked down a peg or two or three
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Interesting concept considering the majority of Americans (60% to be exact) oppose the war in Iraq.
You REALLY need to see the Penn and Teller episode on numbers, it tells you ALL you need to know about polls and studies.
Or, you could google Thomas Sowell, and read what he just wrote about studies. It applies equally to polls.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
I would like to check that out when your done. I have no idea what it was.
I don't know why? He said his plan over and over and over, as recently as last week...
He said that if he were president he would do better, and be smarter.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and that they were most interested in a "level playing field".
lazs
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 :D
-
While I support Bush and the war in Iraq.....I do have a son in the US Army that has already completed one tour in Iraq and is scheduled to return for another 1 year tour in October.
The first time, when he left I cryed.......the night he called me from home and said...Dad, I'm home.......I cryed again, this time due to the relief of knowing that he was safe and no longer in danger.
While he was on his first tour, the camp he was stationed at (Camp Victory?) was hit by mortar fire (the PX was hit) killing some US soldiers. I saw this on the news about an hour or so before my son called to say he wasnt one of the casualties.
While I do realize that we cant just up and leave before the Iraqi's get all their ducks in a line, this thing cant end soon enough for me. This second combat tour is gonna really suck.
I was talking to my son the other night and mentioned that Israel might have killed some Iranian Revolutionary Guard members in Lebanon. My son said....*We might have to go kick Iran's arse, that could be fun*. My reply to that was...None of this is *fun* when your son is in the US Army.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
While I support Bush and the war in Iraq.....I do have a son in the US Army that has already completed one tour in Iraq and is scheduled to return for another 1 year tour in October.
The first time, when he left I cryed.......the night he called me from home and said...Dad, I'm home.......I cryed again, this time due to the relief of knowing that he was safe and no longer in danger.
While he was on his first tour, the camp he was stationed at (Camp Victory?) was hit by mortar fire (the PX was hit) killing some US soldiers. I saw this on the news about an hour or so before my son called to say he wasnt one of the casualties.
While I do realize that we cant just up and leave before the Iraqi's get all their ducks in a line, this thing cant end soon enough for me. This second combat tour is gonna really suck.
I was talking to my son the other night and mentioned that Israel might have killed some Iranian Revolutionary Guard members in Lebanon. My son said....*We might have to go kick Iran's arse, that could be fun*. My reply to that was...None of this is *fun* when your son is in the US Army.
Though your Son doesn't know me from adam...Please tell him Thank you from a Vet.
And thank you for just being normal and worrying about your son. No political views. Just a Parent expressing concern.
Your sons service is greatly appreciated by Me and my wife who read this and was moved by it.
Elfies Son
-
Same as Mr RedTop, moving piece Elfie...best of everything to you both.
-
Elfie, tell him thanks for me as well. Having friends and family going in harms way, I understand your emotions. Remember, they also serve who only sit and wait. God Bless you and yours.
-
to Elfie's boy...errr...man.
...and a hearty thanks from me and mine!
-
Michael Moore is still alive?!?!
I thought he'd consumed himself in an act of parasitic cannibalism months ago. Sheesh.
-
Moore is preliminary evidence that the Democrats have not forgotten how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
This mid-term election and probably the '08 Presidential should be a cakewalk for the Dems. Should be.
However, it seems when they realize this, they drag out every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet under their "NOW IS THE TIME!" banner.
Which, of course, shocks the heck out of any "swing" voters that were thinking of voting Democratic.
If they can keep their Loony Lefties, like Moore, in check they'll have an easy time of it.
If they unlock the asylum, they may have trouble.
-
Hey Elfie, my unit is going back in Oct. Hec i may end up having him on my plane during this tour. Ofcourse he is probable safer fighting the bad guys then flying on my plane...LOL
Was hoping we would go to Afgan this time, since my son is deployed there right now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Moore is preliminary evidence that the Democrats have not forgotten how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
This mid-term election and probably the '08 Presidential should be a cakewalk for the Dems. Should be.
However, it seems when they realize this, they drag out every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet under their "NOW IS THE TIME!" banner.
Which, of course, shocks the heck out of any "swing" voters that were thinking of voting Democratic.
If they can keep their Loony Lefties, like Moore, in check they'll have an easy time of it.
If they unlock the asylum, they may have trouble.
If moore is "evidence" of anything democratic then coulter is evidence of the problem with the republican party. Both prospects seem pretty silly to me.
-
Elfie, salute to you and your son. :aok
If the Dems follow their old pattern, they'll pander to their radical left, alienating middle-Americans, and end up committing political seppuku.
-
They didn't pander to the left last election, they allowed the reps to set the agenda and make it sound like the dems were pandering to the left.. big difference.
-
If the Dems allowed the Republicans to set the agenda and thereby lost the election then why should we trust them to lead the nation?
It's the same old tired refrain we hear after every recent election: We didn't lose...we were blind-sided.
The last time I checked, the playing field was still level. It just appears that one team appears to benefit from a better game plan and coaching.
Both candidates in 2004 ran good campaigns and both are decent men. Yet there was plenty of mud thrown by their supporters. Kerry's war record and Bush's Nation Guard record were shamelessly dragged out by their enemies and trashed publicly.
There was no merit to the charges made in either case.
The Dems lost not because of dirty tricks, but because they failed to frame the debate. The war issue fell flat, and the economy was never really an issue.
Lastly, the Dems failed to muzzle outspoken radicals, such as Michael Moore, who hurt their chances to make inroads into Republican stronghold areas such as the South and Mid-West, where Moore's antics did not play well.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If moore is "evidence" of anything democratic then coulter is evidence of the problem with the republican party. Both prospects seem pretty silly to me.
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--Ann Coulter is just a columnist, like Maureen Dowd, and commands noone.
-
Shuckins, you realize I hope that you just said the same thing I said only with a lot more words.
:)
-
Welp, I'm kinda tired, so I may have misinterpreted what ya said. :)
I interpreted your post to mean that the Dems did not pander to the left.
Failing to muzzle that fat head Moore and some of the bubble-brains in Hollywood seemed to suggest that the DNC gave tacit approval to what they were saying; and hurt them in the election.
Regards, Shuckins
-
What's this about Moore? Exactly how is he relevant here besides being some kind of bogeyman to the right wingers?
He's got nothing to do with the DNC and besides, Lieberman was the DSCC's boy wonder, not the DNC's.... and the DSCC could implode for all I care. It's nice though that they're now backing Lamont, but none of this has anything to do with Moore.
I've watched this race brewing since Lamont first tentatively threw his hat in the ring, where he said that if he could get 1,000 people to pledge to volunteer, he'd run. About a month later he had those 1,000 volunteers and was off to the races. In all those months, I've honestly never ever heard Moore's name mentioned. He had nothing to do with this.
This:
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..." - b222r
..... is nuts.
And while Iraq was a HUGE deal in the CT election and rightfully so, it was not the extent of it. Lieberman tried to give a pass to Bush's rejigging of Social Security which the vast majority of Americans dissaproved of; he voted against cloture on Alito (the only vote that counted) then bragged about having voted against Alito when by then his vote was meaningless; he had the nerve to tell the Democrats to shut up and fall in line behind Bush, he practically rolled over and played dead in his VP debates with Cheney... and it goes on and on.
And I'll tell you what. The Democrats didn't appreciate any of it, and they made their feelings known on Tuesday.
And that's democracy for ya.
It is something else to watch some of you right wingers on this BBS try and say what is best for the Democratic party. As if you know or care. And you were joined in your support for Lieberman by Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Rove....
Thanks for the thoughtful advice, but no thanks.
90% of the Democratic party is against this war. 60% of Americans are against this war. That means that only somewhere between 30%-40% approve of it. Guess what? That's exactly where Bush's approval ratings sit. Those are frightening numbers for Republicans - and if you don't think that the dissaproval is now firmly a mainstream sentiment, and if you don't think it's a perfectly viable campaign issue, then I think that you're off of your rocker and need to get some perspective on it outside of blaming Moore.
Specifically wrt to CT, when 90% of Democrats including Lamont are against the war, but Lieberman is for it - what did you expect?
And to tie this to Moore? That's insane.... Defies logic.
-
Elfie just keep praying for his safety...
Prayers..they do work, ask my Mom. <<>>>
Your're a good Mom.
Mac
'75~'95
US Army Retired.
-
What's amazing is that there are politicians who HAVEN'T denounced the disaster in Iraq. It boggles the mind.
-
Originally posted by Toad
... However, it seems when they realize this, they drag out every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet under their "NOW IS THE TIME!" banner.
Which, of course, shocks the heck out of any "swing" voters that were thinking of voting Democratic.
If they can keep their Loony Lefties, like Moore, in check they'll have an easy time of it.
Nevermind for a minute that it's only the right wingers who seem to pay any serious attention to Moore (evidence to the contrary is welcomed).
I'd like to hear more about the gist of your post if you don't mind:
However, it seems when they realize this, they drag out every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet under their "NOW IS THE TIME!" banner.
What are these exactly?
-
As if you know or care.
There you go again, making blanket and foolish remarks about us conservatives.
-
As often said, the Democrats need to find an agenda. Maybe the have. Maybe the war in Iraq is "the issue".
Bush and the GOP won because they were more trusted to handle security issues than the Democrats.
The Democrats can't change the subject or try to shift the attention to economic, environmental or any other of their weak assed "key issues". Maybe they realize it. Maybe they are going to grow some balls and take national security head on without being wishy washy or vague or ambiguous.
We'll soon see. - Sandman
Not that I care :), but I think it would be a major mistake for the liberal party(s) to latch onto the war in Iraq as their defining campaign platform "issue", no matter what the polls say.
The party that can get a handle on the "War on Islamists" will resonate more with the average American... and with the entire world. (The term "War on Terror" is a PC term that is a misnomer as far as I'm concerned. It confuses people as to what we are really dealing with.)
-
nash.. why is moore relevant here?
open your eyes canada boy.
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.
And why shouldn't they? Every high profile democrat politico was standing in line to get their pic taken next to that lieing slob.
lazs
-
Actually, it's more like 35% or less of Americans that think that Democrats are the party of Moore. And you just happen to be one of them.
Nice try though.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Actually, it's more like 35% or less of Americans that think that Democrats are the party of Moore.
I don't claim to have accurate demographics, so I wont argue. But it is clear that Moore thinks "the Democrats are the party of Moore", and them putting him in the box-o-honor at their national convention did little to disuade his beleifs on the matter.
-
dream on Nash. Just because Bush failed and disappointed many of us (thus low approval rates), does not mean that those disappointed will go to dems. It would not be out of the question in principle, but not with the horrible candidates they promote and even more horrible agenda.
I just could not force myself to vote for Bush last election, but Kerry was even less acceptable choice. Neither of them got my vote and it looks like neither party will get my vote in 2008.
-
Originally posted by mietla
dream on Nash. Just because Bush failed and disappointed many of us (thus low approval rates), does not mean that those disappointed will go to dems. It would not be out of the question in principle....
You dream on, Mietla. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6008502,00.html)
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.
More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections - 19 percent.
I don't know where you get some of these ideas, but a source would be good. Or is it just wishful thinking with some of you guys?
-
They said the same thing in 2003 nash. As it turned out, more people defected from the dems.
Polls don't mean ****. If the dems try to offer up another Kerry and continue bashing the "religious wackos", they're going to lose again.
-
Nash has never been right when it comes to American politics so why should now be any different?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
They said the same thing in 2003 nash. As it turned out, more people defected from the dems.
Polls don't mean ****. If the dems try to offer up another Kerry and continue bashing the "religious wackos", they're going to lose again.
Weren't we talking about the November election/primaries, MiniD?
However, I'd like to see your source regarding what "they said" in 2003, because I can't recall the Dems having any significant lead during that time, nor do I remember any significant Democratic defection. I don't believe you.
While you're at it, could you also show me where any Democratic candidate bashed the "religious wackos" because I've not seen that either, and again I just don't believe you.
Or would you rather I just take your word for this stuff?
Mightyboy - shades, huh? Besides Kerry (which took until the next day to finally decide), name one thing I've been wrong about.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What are these exactly?
For example, if we see the Democratic Gay Pride parade, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see amnesty for illegals, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see raise taxes on the rich, where the rich means the top 50% of all taxpayers that already pay 85%+ of all taxes, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see cut the defense budget, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see equivocation in the anti-terrorist effort and talk of negotiating with terrorists, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
And no one in the Democratic Partly listens to Moore?
We're talking about the Michale Moore that was honored by Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Party convention?
(http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/mmoore2.jpg)
Moore isn't popular with the people the Democrats need to win over.
When he yaks off with threats to Democrats like this one
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush’s War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
If you don’t believe us, give Joe a call.
he's not helping the Democrats gain new voters. If the Dem's allow themselves to become the party of Moore, they're shooting themselves in the foot again.
-
Once again you give waaay too much importance to Moore. Nobody is talking about Moore except for Moore and the right wingers who need scapegoats like Moore.
Show me the multitude of op-ed pieces where Moore is mentioned. Show me where he's turning up on the Sunday morning shows. Show me where he gets mentioned in the MSM regarding or having anything to do with the Lieberman/Lamont race. You won't be able to because, once again, Moore had nothing to do with this race. Period.
Now regarding your answer to my question - you didn't answer it.
You said:
it seems when they realize this, they drag out every nutbag idea, extremist viewpoint and crazy proposal and parade it down mainstreet under their "NOW IS THE TIME!" banner.
I asked you for examples of this, and all you offered were warnings or predictions. If the Democratic platform is so nutbag, so extreme and so crazy - why can't you give me examples of the nutbag, extreme and crazy things that the Democrats drag out and parade down mainstreet?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now regarding your answer to my question - you didn't answer it.
why can't you give me examples of the nutbag, extreme and crazy things that the Democrats drag out and parade down mainstreet?
I did. Why can't you see that?
For example, if we see the Democratic Gay Pride parade, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see amnesty for illegals, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see raise taxes on the rich, where the rich means the top 50% of all taxpayers that already pay 85%+ of all taxes, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see cut the defense budget, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see equivocation in the anti-terrorist effort and talk of negotiating with terrorists, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
-
I think you're just being obtuse about Moore.
He's feted at the Democratic convention. Do you think that might just possibly make folks think he's a treasured part of the party?
His threat to the rest of the Democrats after Lieberman/lamont is already well-known. How do you think threats like that play to the undecideds?
-
'feted' means he had a seat in the audience?
I thought feted meant something else?
like celebrated ... only I don't remember that happening? do you?
-
Well, you tell me.
IIRC, Jimmy walked up to Moore, gave him a warm handshake and then sat next to him for the duration of Bill Clinton's speech to the convention. All of this on national TV with a pretty large audience. I believe he was invited to the skybox by Carter?
Didn't Moore speak at a forum with Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson in Boston during the Kerry campaign? It was the Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America" event. Moore was an invited speaker.
So how could anyone identify Moore with the Democrats and vice versa? Especially after his threat was in ~350 newspapers in a syndicated column?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I did. Why can't you see that?
Why can't I see that a bunch of "if's" isn't an answer?
You said "they drag out every nutball [et al] idea." But you didn't tell me which nutball ideas the Democrats drag out. You just said:
For example, if we see the Democratic Gay Pride parade, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see amnesty for illegals, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see raise taxes on the rich, where the rich means the top 50% of all taxpayers that already pay 85%+ of all taxes, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see cut the defense budget, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
If we see equivocation in the anti-terrorist effort and talk of negotiating with terrorists, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
I'll tell you what. The Republicans drag out every nutball extremist idea of their own. What are these? Well, for example, if you see monkeys flying out of your ass, then I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
Comprende?
And what exactly is the "Democratic Gay Pride parade?" I've never heard of that before. Is that anything like the Republican KKK parade?
Nice touch.
-
To the majority of Americans, Moore represents the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. That is beyond debate and accepted as fact even by most Democrats.
Whether or not the Democrats adopt a radical agenda as part of their platform in the upcoming elections is another matter.
Letting the political campaign become dominated by a far left agenda is fraught with peril for the Dems. Most moderate Democrats realize this and attempt to distance themselves from them, but the radical left is extremely vocal, and adopts an in-your-face style of confrontation that many middle-Americans find repugnant.
With a Congress split between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratically controlled House, Bill Clinton adopted a leftist agenda in 1993; gun-control, gutting the military budget, gays in the military, increased taxation, and a number of others.
The gun-control bill, pushed through Congress despite warnings from members of his own party, literally blew up in his face. This and other things, broke the iron grip the Democrats had had on the House for almost fifty years.
In every election since that time, Democrats have fought desperately to rid themselves of the reputation of being dominated by their radicals.
Fair or not, that is how many middle-of-the-road Americans perceive them.
Adopting opposition to the war in Iraq may be issue that yields control of Congress to them...but they had better approach it cautiously, for if they don't watch how they handle it it could backfire on them.
-
You know, nash, I didn't participate in the "when you going to post a link" witch hunt a few days ago when you seemingly refused to back statements and panned them off as facts you were too busy to prove. I find it funny how quickly you go to the same card.
Every dem I know of insisted people would realize how stupid the republicans were and vote for kerry. Everyone except the religious wackos. They'd stay republican. The democratic party had no idea how many of their own were religious wackos too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.