Posted on 06/25/2004 9:48:59 PM PDT by neverdem
"I don't think [Clinton] ever actively loathed this country to the extent Michael Moore does."
No, he did not, he doesn't. I firmly believe that Bill Clinton loves America, at least on his own little self-indulgent terms. His wife is basically a commie, but I don't think Bill is. In fact, as of right now, he looks pretty darn good compared to the rest of the looney, screaming faced, losers in that party.
I can't say what I want to say next, but lets just say there are a LOT of people who have shown their true colors since 9/11 who are a LOT more HATEABLE than Bill Clinton could ever be.
I almost feel sad for him. One has to wonder about the source of the intense violent hatred and rage that fuels such resentment of other men's happiness.
Based on this article, it seems like Moore is the counterpoint to Bush which must comfort certain restless anti-Aericanism. Otherwise, what do we tell people around the world - we're invading for our freedom? Moore's point makes more sense - it's like NAFTA, but global. Bush's point: freedom, is not really selling anywhere... except Micronesia, they love it.
I disagree. Freedom always sells. It undid the Soviet Empire. It will undo the jihadist enterprise. Moore loathes his people and his government so much that he despises even the attempt to bring light unto darkness.
Moore is like so many on the Left: they cannot love their country unless they rule their country.
A devastating take on Moore by Brooks, btw. And a nice blow against the Democrats who flocked to his film, as well.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
JL posted:"So how long will it take for the media to pull some smuck off the street who claims he was going to vote for Bush but after seeing this movie he is voting for Kerry ?"
Well, John, a troll got zotted on Free Republic yesterday claiming that it was a previous GW Republican and will vote for al Kerry due to Moore's lies on film.
Recently Zotted Troll claiming to be a great republican for GW
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1160345/posts
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
LOL!
Not a chance.
Not only would he saw Moore's head off, but he'd probably be laughing as he did it.
Al Qaida and co. wants a war. They want the people on the sidelines to join in, and they want the people against the war to join in. They may appreciate Moore's anti-Americanism from an aestetic point of view, but if they ever got their hands on him, they'd make a point to execute him publicly.
Overwhelming, the Left's vision of and for America. I try never to forget it.
Ouch! What did Farley and Candy do to deserve being in the same comment as Lumpy Reifenstahl?
URPeans don't even know socialism is slavery.. and in URP the governments grant privileges not "rights".. Mikey.. is quite dumb you know... Parliaments are very primitive governments because of that.. Mike has no idea of the miracle of the American Constitution.. and why its special and unique in the world.. Our rights are given by God not government... Thats why some are trying to deport God from America as we speak.. but ALL Gods... only the Judeo-Christain one.. the immigrant Gods are OK ...
Excellent, BTTT
I wouldn't say that. Think about how many of the religious right thought it was safe enough to stay home and not vote because the difference between the two main contestants was the difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.
Forget about what Clinton did to our culture, although that was bad enough. Remember how the idiot, after taking the contributions of Bernard Schwarz and Michael J. Armstrong, enabled those Benedict Arnolds in perfecting Chicom ICBM technology in the guise of helping them launch satellites.
In a lighter vein, check out comment# 73, if you haven't done so already.
MERDE! What's wrong with him. Doesn't he know that all of use in flyover country just adore this prophet of the left (sarcasm)
This author and Bill Safire are the two token OpEd columnists whose perspectives come from the right, as far as the NY Times OpEd page goes. Brooks former employer is The Weekly Standard. Safire wrote speeches for Nixon.
He epitomised what one of his critics called "infantile leftism", an egotistical school of politics which is concerned principally with making gestures; attempting to shock (think Michael Moore) and constantly criticising, but never proffering a coherent alternative. J G Merquior labelled Foucault a quintessential neo-anarchist.
Whereas traditional anarchists were inspired by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Kropotkin's co-operatives, and took pride in their embrace of science and humane Enlightenment values, Foucault owes more to the egotistical, destructive spirit of Mikhail Bakunin, whose anarchism luxuriated in its negativity and irrationality.
Its beliefs consist entirely of what it opposes. This legacy can be seen in today's "anti- capitalist" demonstrators, who are clear about what they seek to destroy, but rather vague as to what they want to create.
...............................................................http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160760/posts?page=3#3
Thanks for your reply. Keep up the great work. You're a great American.
LOL
Don't be so humble. This is as good a piece on the origins of "modern" political philosophy as anyone could find without looking for it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160760/posts
From time to time, Ill post or ping on noteworthy articles about politics and foreign and military affairs. Let me know if you want off my list.
This is pretty good piece of satire. If you don't want to read the whole thread, please make sure you read the article linked in comment# 99 to have a grasp from where the idiotic left has descended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.