What's more creepy...

Politicians cozying up to Michael Moore

or...

Politicians cozying up to (and crowning!) Reverand Moon? (linkage)

Given the choice, I'll take the man from Flint every time.

ok, ep2k

Elvis -

If you want to buy into that sort of "the moon landing was faked" conspiracy nonsense, feel free.

But please stop asking the rest of us to participate.

Eric,

Intended or not, I like your "moon" pun.

By the way are you suggesting the Reverand Moon thing is a conspiracy?

ok, ep2k

The problem is the whole "Bush Lied" argument along with others is not longer just fringe talking. I have relativiely normal neighbors who beleive this crap. At some point Everybody has got to be held accountable for lies and half truths, left and right. At this point I think the lefties have it though. Michael Moore and others should be held accountable for the lies and half truths they propagate. I mean, Moores film has factual errors in it and he HAS to know it. Now, that's lying plain and simple. It's not about being wrong, which Bush and Cheney may or may not be/have been, time will tell, it's about lying. And if you don't know what a lie is at some point you need to be shown. Now, Moore has hired professional liars to help him out with any legal problems arising from his film. Well, you know, if he hadn't LIED in it he probably wouldn't need them now, would he.

Chads

Chads:

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

This election cycle, The Left is fighting back, using the same techniques The Right has been using for years.

The Looney Left makes the most noise, but it's far better than having them simply bail and vote for that idiot Nader. The more moderate types just get to sit and watch -- for perfectly understandable reasons.

Back in 1964, Saint Barry observed that he was getting political support from the John Birch Society and even from the Ku Klux Klan in some places. He observed, with his political candidate hat on, that the votes of such folks counted Just the same as votes from anyone else. It was, fwiw, the first inkling of the Suthrun Strategy from the GOP.

Better learn to live with it. Sniveling about it isn't terribly efficacious.

Everyone should go and read the Forum at the Democratic underground at lest once. All the talk from the media about "right wind fanatics" pales in comparison to the down right Kerry (I mean scary, sorry) spewings that go on there.

Don,

No conservative is actively trying to destroy America. ANSWER and their friends like Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Al Gore are actively supporting our enemies in wartime.

You seem to be one of them. Do you hate yourself that much?

Look, both sides use rhetoric, often hyperbole. The problem is that its starting to seem like the left actually believes its own BS. Thats kinda scary. We dont live in a police state. No-one is being hauled off for expressing their opinions. Bush isnt in bed with Bin Ladin.
It kinda reminds me of the militia extremists during the Clinton years, they were truly convinced that Clinton was sneaking UN black helicopters into America to take it over. Problem is, those were a few hundred wackos in Montana, and nobody was awarding them prizes at Cannes.

I'm not trying to deny that partisan politics and infighting have been going on for years, as well as downright dirty tricks. But to actively lie and then not retract it but defend it? That was Grey Davis's MO in California and look what it got him.

The problem with the whole process is accountability, and having an informed enough electorate to call Bullshit when they see it.

Chads

Anyone who conflates the "Democratic Underground" with the Democratic Party is too gullible to be out without adult supervision.

LD2: Of course no consurrrvative is actively trying to Destroy America. Just ask them; they'll tell you. Time after time after time. And they believe it too.

Do remember -- criticizing the administration During "Wartime" (this is Not "wartime" as the term is properly used imnaaho) has been an ongoing Right that Americans have exercised from the beginning of the Republic. For proof of which, look to how the GOP types Howled at FDR for "getting us into WW2."

Get a grip here.

Criticizing the administration is Not cooperating with The Enemy. Never has been. Isn't now. Isn't going to be any time soon.

MB: You complain when The Left straightfaces its story. You call it BS.

You don't complain when The Right straightfaces its story, though oftimes its Factual basis is equally suspect.

I say again: Sauce. Goose. Gander.

If this is how folks want Politics to be played, then this is how it will be played. If both sides, simultaneously, are prepared to call a Truce and work towards ending this silliness, then that's what will have to happen.

But for one side to whine that the Other Side is doing the same thing?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Don, there is a fundamental difference. Rush Limbaugh isnt the toast of Hollywood, Roger Ebert doesnt give him 4 stars, hundreds of celebraties and major politicos doent come out to his book releases. You are right, both sides have their extremists, and both sides have their wackos. My point is that on the right these folks are generally accepted and ignored. On the left they become the toast of the town and get to cherry pick their interviews with Katie Kuric and Larry King. Even that stuff doesnt bother me all that much, all it ultimately does is kill ratings for the network mafias.
Like I said, it bothers me that a lot of people in powerful positions seem to believe some pretty outrageous nonsense. Howard Dean intimating Bush new about 911, Al Gore saying all the nutty things he is saying, Kennedy with his weekly rants. These arent deadenders in Oklahoma or first term congressment from San Francisco. These are the leadership of the democratic party, and if they believe what they are spouting that is just scary, because desperate people will do desperate things.

"This election cycle, The Left is fighting back, using the same techniques The Right has been using for years." Posted by Don at July 2, 2004 11:45 AM

I didn't know Republicans stuffed BallotBoxes, or attempted to stop US Military Personnel stationed overseas from voting...

Then we have those folks who 'claim' that President Bush 'stole' the election. CHAD. Remember?

The Democrats' campaign against the Iraq war has been incredibly dumb. Long on partisanship, weak on facts and reason.

MB: Quite right -- Rush is not the toast of hollywood. He's the toast of Birmingham, Alabama.

So what?

The wackos on the right are accepted, and hardly ignored at all. Just look around at what the Wingnuts hereon get into, when they get all het up about something.

If the whine is about Hollywood -- which it always seems to be, for some odd reason -- why is it Such a problem for you if some folks don't happen to believe the way You prefer? They are entertainers, and they are entertaining. Rush is an entertainer, and he is entertaining. Hannity and Combs are entertainers, and they are entertaining. Und so weiter....

One might reasonably paraphrase your whining about what D's are saying by contrasting that to the absurd nonsense the R's have been saying of late. Or don't you watch that stuff? I figure that Faux News just sorta lets ignores it, and prefers to focus its myopic lens elsewhere. It's like Yogi said -- you Can see a lot just by Looking.

OTOH, if your head is in the sand continuously, chances are you're going to miss a bunch of stuff.

But the whole contretemps is straightforward: This time around, The Left is going to fight the same sorts of innuendo and nonsense that the Right has been using for a decade, and if the Right doesn't happen to like it, they are going to get the same short shrift that they gave to the Left for the past decade.

See it in its larger context here, Mark. That's what's really going on.

And if The Right now chooses to whine about a Lack of Civility, I say again: Sauce. Goose. Gander.

CptD:

It wasn't the D's who came up with the list of supposed felons in FL that effectively denied several thousand folks who were Not felons their vote.

You don't have to Stuff ballot boxes (a charge you can level but can't prove anyway) if you can keep the other folks' ballots from getting into them in the first place. No one can count what isn't there.

As for that canard that someone tried specifically to stop Military Personnel from overseas from voting -- that too is a falsehood on its face. It simply didn't happen.

It's that Rule of Law thing again. If State law says there must be some sort of indication On The Envelope that the ballot was mailed by the appropriate deadline, then that Legal requirement must count for Everyone.

If the APO/FPO system somehow "forgets" to place those indicia on the envelopes (and obtw the envelopes are unmistakable and can't be confused with any other mail), then the responsibility for failing to do so belong to the DoD, and no one else.

You would be Deeply and Permanently Fromaged if FL election officials were to count any civilian envelope without the legally required indicia. The military folks don't get a free ride here, nor should they.

They may well have voted. No one tried to stop them from doing so. They may well have handed their envelopes off to the DoD's APO/FPO internal postal system in good faith. No problem there either.

But it was the DoDs responsibility to ensure that once the envelopes were in their hands to process them correctly, and not in the slipshod manner they clearly did.

(Just fwiw, the USN has a shipboard "Voter Assistance Officer" -- it's one of those Additional Duties for junior officers -- whose Specific responsibility it is to receive absentee ballot envelopes, mark them appropriately, and ensure that they are mailed in a timely manner. Failure to accomplish that responsibility can put someone in Deep KimChee rather quickly. CO's take a Very dim view of their shipboard personnel not taking proper care of their shipmates. Too bad the Army and USMC don't handle their responsibilities with a similar focus. Seems as how not doing that can effectively disenfranchise their folks.)

Your assertion does not gain credulity by being endlessly repeated.

So, just to keep your memory refreshed, keep the principles in mind:

* US military personnel are Not exempt from the legal requirements for voting in the states to which they send their ballots.

* It is the responsibility of the DoD, through the APO/FPO system, to ensure that all ballots have the required indicia as to date of mailing. If they do not, it is Their failure, and no one else's.

During the aftermath of the FL Fiasco, several of the Select Commissions on Voter Reform nationally discussed this specific problem with the DoD. A good friend and tennis partner of mine, Al Davidson from Marion County, OR, chaired one of those commissions.

When he brought it up with the folks at DoD, they asked him not to make much of it, and they would quietly fix it all on their own. They fessed up to the fault, though.

That's the legal side of this discussion. You, in the tradition of Roger Moore and others, apparently don't want to provide the full and complete Truth of the matter, and prefer instead to make unsupportable allegations that someone out there tried to stop US military personnel from voting. Read your own post.

It just never happened, Cap'n.

The intense level of whackiness exhibited by the left must give the enemy heart.
When AQ sees the audience give Moore a standing ovation they must think, "We have a real chance of victory."
The true masters of the art of war make the enemy believe that there is no possibility of victory and so the battle is avoided in the first place.

JH> Furthermore, what does the fact that John Kerry has
JH> chosen to link to the Democratic Underground from his
JH> website say about him?

Don> Anyone who conflates the “Democratic Underground”
Don> with the Democratic Party is too gullible to be out
Don> without adult supervision.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up Kerry. Nice to see someone
from the leftista camp admitting it.

So Don

What exactly was Mr. Gores lawsuit all about?

Chads

Chads, ol' chap -- once again, you seem to have been caught in a Factual Error.

The name of the lawsuit was Bush vs Gore.

The GOP filed it, not the Gore campaign.

Funny how you weren't aware of that.

Achillea: You will search in vain for evidence the Kerry is in touch with the Democratic Underground.

You too are stretching.

Don says:
this is Not “wartime” as the term is properly used

Let's see, combat troops actively fighting in TWO different theatres...This is not wartime?

You need to keep up with your meds.

So the question really is, do the actions of the democrats/liberals/DU crowd all add up to 'helping the enemy'?

In a media-rich 2004, the answer is YES The left's agenda holds railroading an 'Anybody but Bush' into office as a higher priority over any soldier, Iraqi or Afgan and use their deaths, disparity and failures for their gain.

Actually, it was called Bush v. Gore because Bush is the one who petitioned for a writ of certiorai to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Florida Supreme Court's decision.

I do think it was originally Gore's suit, because he was challenging what the Fla. Secretary of State had done.

One ironic thing, though, is that the Dems always complain that it was "so wrong for a court to decide the election." In fact, if there were no courts involved, Gore would have lost sooner. HE invoked the Florida courts, and was getting the result he wanted (although it's likely he still would have lost Fla. had it been recounted the way he was asking), and Bush just took it to a higher court.

Don.

I prosecuted and sent 11 people to jail for stuffing ballot boxes.

All DEMOCRATS. So, don't give me any of that "we didn't stuff the ballot boxes" bull shit.

Don: FYI – Article 1; section 8 of the U.S. Constitution only gives Congress the ability to declare war.

However, in this case, congress left it up to President Bush to actually go to war.

Don: FYI – Article 1; section 8 of the U.S. Constitution only gives Congress the ability to declare war.

Posted by: Phobos at July 2, 2004 09:31 PM
********************************** **************************
and

", grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

Everyone seems to always overlook those Constitutional levels of hostility that fall below full scale War.

Those who continue the never ending mantra
"But we have not DECLARED War" probably have never read the Constitution.

If they had they would realise there is nothing in the Patriot Act which comes anywhere close to invoking,

Article I Section 9 paragraph 2

Thanks samualv

That's the way I remembered it. Gore had filed suit in Florida and then Bush took it to the Supreme Court. There never would have been a Bush vs Gore if Gore hadn't been playing around in the first place, or as Don would call it, enforcing the letter of the Law.

Chads

Lakhim

Cop a clue, it is always up to the CIC as to how to engage and when, the Congress has no say in that after the declaration is passed.

Chads

LD2: You are to be congratulated for your feasance.

Now -- shall we discuss once again what I actually said?

If you can keep the opposition's votes from being in the box at all, you can come up with a margin that would be the same as stuffing the ballot box.

See how that works? The mathematics are really simple.

Chads:

The Bush campaign filed the lawsuit to stop the counting. It had started without Gore filing a lawsuit at all.

Revisit your History here.

MG: War has always been between at least two nation-state, one of which has actually declared War on the other.

That is not the case in this instance with either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Further, as a general rule the two belligerents have each found some sort of plausible rationale for their actions.

In these two separate instances, I can actually see a reason for an attack on Afghanistan. It did, after all, actually and demonstrably provide a base from which ObL could operate, and refused to extradite him for Crimes -- not Acts of War, however -- against the US when it was asked. Under those circumstances, military action would be appropriate and defensible, and I supported the Afghanistan action without reservation. I still do.

Iraq is an entirely different case. Try as you might, you will find no Act that Iraq took against the US. From the first, this was Not a response to an act of belligerency, but was always supposed to be some sort of "preventive" war -- we would attack because we believed not only that Iraq was Willing to attack if it could do so (even if it had not) but was also Capable of attacking, or of assisting some other entity to attack.

I said, from before the war, that Iraq was neither capable of attacking the US directly, but further that it had indicated no operational alliance with or intention to cooperate with a Third Party in doing so. We neither demonstrated our Proof of those assertions before the fact, nor have we been able to demonstrate them now.

What we are involved in is something quite different from the general use of the term War. Indeed, for several decades, we have not done so but instead have undertaken Military Actions that fall short of actual War as defined.

From Iraq's pov, this might well be a War, however.

We either need a New Definition or we need a lot better rationale for what we're doing, seems to me.

Casus belli: Saddam's refusal to live up to the 1991 cease fire.

We needed nothing greater than this, as we were already technically at war with him.

Dson

as usual it's not as simple as all that. Here is what I would consider an accurate timeline of events.

http://covenantnews.com/election.htm

Basically, from this and what I recall, Gores team started the legal machinations and Bush finished it.

Chads

Two words, Cook County. Daley brings out the living and the dead to vote democrat.

Mark,

Dead Democrtats from Cook County gave Democrats Illinois and elected John F. Kennedy President in 1960.

That is why Teddy fights so hard for Brain-Dead Demos. He belongs, you see.

well, there's Moore, and then there's Morons like John Hawkins.

.,


"THAR HE BLOWS"


"MAN THE BOATS"


Excerpt from STUPID WHITE WHALES

"m&m.shaft&haircut2bits@y.what"* 2*en


page may not be displayed,....................yet.we serve and evlove.\>*

*Avec TAR TAR&FEATHER [dans in the sans]; {in meshek fun} prepared for Sadam's last (anti-)supper.

No champania no halvaha.


2nd*en Michael Moore off the hoof. withr democratsway.

Due Proccess Drop In & Give''em SASS


No nice whales or dolphins where used in this saga.






Global 911 Service*

-*&

I saw F 9/11 with my wife last night, and although I didn't believe everything presented, walked away having digested some interesting information. For example, why did over 100 Saudis, including numerous relatives of Bin Laden, fly out of our country in the days post 9/11 when the FAA had grounded all flights? The info regarding Bush's Texas National Guard record is troubling as well. I always found it gross thet he never finished his duty, and I don't blame him for wanting out, but don't lie about it. His buddy, James Bath, who became a very close friend of Bush during those years, managed much of the Bin Laden's money and invested that in more than one of Bush's failing business ventures. Then there's Bush's insider trading. This is all traceable with a paper trail. These are just a few bits of info that show the image of a man who is nothing close to the image he attempts to paint of himself. Saddam should die - nobody will argue the point. 9/11 was unavoidable in my opinion, but Bush's excessive vacation early in his campaign shouldn't leave anyone feeling he did all he could have done. My problem with the film remains the US looks bad, and will look worse, as many people around the world will take all they see as fact. Anything that forces dialogue within our borders and gets people interested in politics is great, and if I had a problem with things written or spoken about me, I would address and correct these things. I think we should formulate our own opinions, and as we shouldn't take everything Moore projects as fact, let's not be so naive to believe everything our govt says as well. For God's sake, Wolfowitz didn't even know how many casuaties has sustainedd in Irag the other day - that is a problem.

caprig

I think you need to look at some of the debunking done on Moores "film". Newsweek actually had a pretty good piece on it. As for the flights, it was in total 24 Saudi's the day AFTER the restrictions had been lifted, and the FBI interviewed between 16 and 21 of the 24 and none of them were thought to be a terrorrist threat. Basically, you were lied to, and if he lied to you once in the film, I wouldn't trust a damn thing he has to say in any of it.

Chads

Should have mentioned this also,

According to the Newsweek article, Bath invested $50,000 of HIS OWN money on ONE of Bush's ventures, Arbusco, which as far as I know is the only thing he did before buying the Texas Rangers. He then sold the Rangers and Ran for Governor of Texas. How many other Business ventures was he in?

Chads

One fact that cannot be disputed is after the second plane hit tower two on September 11th George Bush sat there like a coward for seven minutes. It's recorded on video. America was under attack and he just sat there frozen with fear. Does that bother anyone?.

gotta go and I'll look for the 9/11 panel quote later. But how, exactly do you know what his intentions or reasons were? Because Michael Moore said so?

Chads

This article from a Liberal, Christopher Hitches, exposes all of Moore's lies.

Sorry guys, anyone who believes anything of Moore's has been snookered. Read all of the actual facts for yourself. It is called:


The lies of Michael Moore

"Bush sat there like a coward for seven minutes" That's your spin on what happened, or Moore's spin on what happened.

Don and the easily snookered, please read this.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The film is just a propaganda piece made to affect our election. Don't fall for it.

Vote American....Vote Bush.

Don, you present a fine defence of mainstream Democratic thought from which I conclude:

Unhinged.creepy.lunacy

'America was under attack and he just sat there frozen with fear. Does that bother anyone?.'

Bush had a human response. What he did in that moment is irrelevant. How he took decisive action later is relevant.

What was Clinton's response to terrror attacks on the US? His non-response emboldened our enemy and paved the way for future attacks.

That bothers me a great deal. As does Kerry's rhetoric about the UN and Europe. Appeasing weasel that he is.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: