Fortunately I was in Beantown last week and initially missed this Indymedia bile (“Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan“), but then Hanks pointed it out to me and I have to say- I don’t find their comments surprising at all. I have been telling you aboutthe creeping crud known as the grass roots of the far left for a long while now.
This is the ANSWER crowd, the Anyone But Bush crowd- these are the activists and extremists who the DNC uses openly at times, covertly most times, to fill their rallies and to advance their agenda. No surprises here. In fairness, they are as openly hostile to many moderate Democrats (those who are left, I guess)as they are to all Republicans and Libertarians.
I am just glad they are out there in the open, letting us know what they really think. And what do they really think? This sums it up:
Just remember- dissent is patriotic, and Bush is the extremist.
“extremists who the DNC uses openly at times, covertly most times”
Would you like that tinfoil hat in large or extra large? What garbage you’re spewing now.
As opposed to White House advisors, who consider America’s enemies to be Al Qaeda and pro-choicers.
OLiver- are you going to argue that the DNC and Terry McAuliffe don’t use these peoples as proxies aginst Bush?
Lemme guess- it was just a million ordinary Americans who go to all these rallies, which allmost exclusively attempt to advance Democrat causes…
This is nothing compared to, say, LGF or Ann Coulter. The DNC uses the ANSWER crowd because they exist, so we have to deal with them. By contrast, the Right venerates its psychopaths.
Dissent is patriotic and Bush is an extremist. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t other extremists out there, and it doesn’t mean that some dissenters aren’t patriotic.
Kimmitt- Surely you mean the commenters at LGF. Charles Johnson is a liberal- and his posts are generally not that offensive at all (I don’t read all that often anymore, so maybe he has changed). His commenters do go off the deep end.
Also- I see you Ann Coulter and raise you Michael Moore.
Some dissent is patriotic- this is just filth.
“Also- I see you Ann Coulter and raise you Michael Moore.”
Wait, wait. Are you insane? Are you actually attempting to imply that Moore is a tenth as offensive and foul as Coulter, much less moreso?
Hell I will give you Moore and throw in Fraken, Swartz, Roades and Garafol. I like to believe that I am independent in my voting and thinking I do alot of research before I cast my vote. Just from listening to Air America, EIB Network, O’Riley, and all the rest i should just shoot my radio and wait in the storm cellar with my tin foil hat on and wait for the aliens to come take me away. Both sides are telling us nothing. Kerry could tell you the truth if his Pants were on fire and if he did say something he would have to wait and see what the polls told him what they wanted. Bush would put his pants out but every liberal nutcase would have to disect whether it needed to be done, if he did it right, whether it was going to affect the weather on the planet. Then want hime to come on national TV and explain why he came to decision without the help of a independent panel.
So research and learn to think for youself. As for Nader good luck. Couldn’t get on the ballot here in Oregon. More Flaming Liberals not enough Socialists
M. Scott Eiland
“Wait, wait. Are you insane?”
cough cough projection cough cough.
Kimmit, was that a typo in your post? Surely you meant to type that Mikey is 10 TIMES more offensive than Ann Coulter. Still an understatement….
Y’all forgot Larry Flynt… passionate, purist journalist: on the side of the working man.
Hmm, the link to Indymedia now goes to a static blurb about Open Publishing.
Yes, dissent can be patriotic. Colonial dissent against abuses of governmental authority led to the Revolutionary War and, in turn, to the founding of our country. The Boston Tea Party was dissent. This cartoon is not dissent. It is insensitive, disrespectful propaganda. It disrespects the very soldiers who fought and died to protect this person’s right to print this garbage. And he or she doesn’t even have the common sense or decency to recognize that. Truly shameful.
“Surely you meant to type that Mikey is 10 TIMES more offensive than Ann Coulter. ”
Show me where Moore advocated the conquest of 1/5 of the world’s population followed by its forcible conversion to a different religion.
Also, show me where Moore contended that every single conservative sought to make America weaker because they wanted more terrorist attacks against it.
I think your problem isn’t that Moore is more offensive than Coulter. It’s that you agree with Coulter’s foulness.
Actually, I think Ann Coulter’s liberal counterpart is Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly called for the eradication, violently in some cases, of those he disagrees with.
Not to mention his veneration of those willing to not only forcibly convert people to a new religion, communism.
Ann Coulter has never assembled a collection of lies and gotten an Oscar for presenting fiction as fact. And that’s just one of the reasons I know that the Mikeoid is more offensive.
“Ann Coulter has never assembled a collection of lies and gotten an Oscar for presenting fiction as fact.”
The movie had a number of factual errors, but he got an Oscar because it was, in a word, good.
Not to hijack, but Moore won an Oscar in the “Documentary” category.
Unfortunately, given the “number of factual errors” it was a piece of fiction done in the style of a documentary, not a documentary.
If “Bowling for Columbine” qualified for an Oscar in the Documentary class, then “This is Spinal Tap” should have, too.
I think Moore just had his creativite invention turned up to 11, myself.
Question of the Day:
What is the Best Documentary of ALL TIME Time (echo) time (echo) time?
a) Bowling for Columbine
b) This Is Spinal Tap
c) Best In Show
d) A Mighty Wind
f) The China Syndrome
g) Ernest Scared Stupid
“Unfortunately, given the “number of factual errors” it was a piece of fiction done in the style of a documentary, not a documentary. ”
Ah . . . no. “Bowling” was not possessed of a particularly large number of errors. You are confusing it with some of his other works, which were much less well done.