Posted on 12/13/2004 5:01:04 AM PST by Capagrl
Everyone else is wrong and he and his followers are "victims". In truth they are are immoral,lazy,uneducated anti-American, naive, greedy, self loathing,self centered, anarchists who happen to also be control freaks.
The only reason most of them are not outwardly violent is because they are also physically weak. But they do beat up on children ,all the time, under the name of such things as the NEA,ACLU, and NAMBLA. But those things are not cool to be... Hollywood movies say so...after all.
anyone who thinks these freaks are victims of the government should take a look at one of their rallies. The hatred and vile signs they march around with- unharmed and no consequences - shows they are only victims of their own thinking.
Can he walk as far as his refrigerator?
"I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write.... All I know is that first you've got to get mad. (shouting) You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'"
Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976
It's good to see Micheal working so soon after getting a large part of the credit for helping Re-elect Bush, to Elect a Republican in 08.
This is from the last election wars....but it is applies now...sounds like both sides would benefit.
We lost a very close election (a one-state difference) by running the #1 liberal in the Senate.At least he's admitting they lost. That's something. He could be screaming "stolen election". I'm somewhat surprised that he's not doing that.
"Where's the outrage?" - Bob Dole 1996.
Ummm. . . the democrat party has no core. That is why it cannot win elections. It is nothing more than a loose affiliation of special interst groups, who are now finding that they have a lot less in the way of common interests than they used to. At its "core" the Democratic Party is completely without any kind of cohesive vision. There simply is no there there.
That is one of the funniest political cartoons I have ever seen in my life.
Wow, what a big fat mornon!
How many union members in the private sector? Probably less than 10 million nowadays.
Copernicus is an example of someone who voiced similar concepts (Earth revolves around the Sun) while receiving some support from "the church" (Galileo worked from his studies).
First ones to claim they're a victim loses. He must be losing money. or he's being told to take a hike by the Dumocrats.
There are also RINOs who have joined the Republican Party and we would do better to be rid of them (even if it means they become prominent New "Old Democrats").
Lyndon LaRouche runs as a Democrat every campaign and says that he was with the Democrats until the social upheavals of the 1960s (he does not support the modern liberal agenda). He is not a mainstream Democrat but he is another example of a Democrat who is unhappy with the Michael Moores and Nancy Pelosis in his party.
If abortion and homosexual marriage/adoption were rejected by the Democrats and Republicans (only embraced by Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Communists, Socialist Workers' etc...) the political landscape may look different. Some of "Bush Country" may support the Republicans because they embrace traditional values; back when BOTH parties stood for values, this would not have been an issue.
Socialists have tried to overthrow the American social order (cast out religion, cast out our institutions, create interal turmoil and keep people dependent on an ever increasing government). Remove this cancer from the "2 party" American political system and this slice of human debris will have little impact on the elections.
Some may say that there would be no difference between the two parties but there still would be some differences on immigration/economic asylum, taxation/inheritance, social security...
What was the identity of the Democrat Party prior to Marx? Do we go back to Jefferson? Would JFK sill be a Democrat today? What is a Republican? Does it mean the same as it did in the 1860s?
To those who oppose a two party system, I am all for letting more candidates run but believe that there are benefits in an election being decided by a plurality of the vote. If we are going to have 8-15 parties running for President, I would want to see a runoff race between the top two candidates (none of this "elected with 35-42% of the popular vote" or the 2-party/8-party Congress deciding the winner when there are insufficent electoral votes again and again). Such changes would require a Constitutional amendment.
"The theological objection to the idea of a "globe" Earth was not universal by all means. But the official church did require Galileo to recant his views, which he did for a time. It is, as you note, a mixed picture. Most of his opposition was from academics in institutes, but there was then no sharp distinction between academics and theologians."
Erm, there's a massive, huge, vast difference between the notion of a heliocentric universe (Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice versa) and the idea that the Earth is flat instead of a globe. In fact, they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one another, and I find it astonishing how many people from the "those darn religious dogmatics and their silly beliefs" side of the argument make this elementary dogmatic mistake.
Yes, the knowledge that the globe was round was pretty much universal for centuries prior to Galileo. The idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun was an entirely different matter.
Don't take this as a huge criticsm of you personally. I see your posts all the time and enjoy them very much and consider you intelligent. I'm just rather surprised to see you make this same elementary and dogmatically anti-religious (or is it just anti-Catholic) historical mistake that so many other people make.
Qwinn
"One state away from the presidency"....Which one? There are 50.
"Democrats are the victims in an abusive relationship"....Whatever.
"Dems need to distance themselves from gays and civil rights"....Well, I guess that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. The Democrats problem is that they've pandered to the far, far left wing of the party for so long, that they've lost track of what their party stands for. Like it or not, America is a moderate-to-conservative nation, and the 'masses' that this author has such contempt for, don't agree with supporting the far left fringe. Transgendered cross-dressing gay rights activists no more represent the majority of the Democratic party than Eric Rudolph represents the Republican majority.
If the Dems ever get rid of Michael Moore and his ilk, and come back to the center, then conservatism will be challenged. Until then, count on seeing a lot of "R's" in public office.
IMHO, I'd love to see a stronger Democratic party. Strong debate makes for good policy.
Eyes wide open now! If this is an abusive relationship, where is my 2x4? We got some real abusin to do. Lucy! You've got some splainin to do, and this 2x4 is gonna hurt!
I believe MM is a victim of too much self abuse.
But after all, the way he looks, that's about all there is for him.
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.