Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
...the lastest Leni Riefenstahl epic. ...

Funny this, coming from the Michael Moore party

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Did you read the post? He is arguing that we would have been under tremendous pressure from the Frogs and Russians to END THE SANCTIONS.

A distinction without a difference; it's still circular.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sorry to interupt this love-fest for a movie no one's seen yet, but I'm sure at least some here will be interested that RealClearPolitics is now tracking the odds .

With "markets" all in one place, you guys should now have more time for posting paeons to the lastest Leni Riefenstahl epic. Have at it.

Puhleeze, we'll take an Eisenstein and Riefenstahl any day over your Moore. We would take a Tom Hanks (U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.!), but wouldn't touch your fifth-column propogandist with a ten-foot pole. You people had him sit next to an ex-President at your convention. You wanna talk about propogandists?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"movie" implies fiction. this is a documentary, you know like Mike makes.

Shit. He makes documentaries too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You people had him sit next to an ex-President at your convention.

actually that probably hurt moore's reputation more than it hurt carter's, didn't it? close call i know.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Sebby says, "I'm a lover of liberty, a lifelong pro-Choice Catholic, and I'm sick of people like you saying drugs should be illegal but abortion should be state's rights". Who you talking about here Sebby? Because where I'm from, you are talking about the suburban crowd. Yeah, fuck all the minorities in the ghetto, but don't you dare throw a felony on my kid for buying the shit.

I know this is your schtick and all, but I don't even see your point. Sebby says there is an apparent inconsistency in republican policy that favors state's rights on some issues (e.g. abortion, guns, civil rights) but favors federal enforcement in other areas (e.g. drugs, gay marriage).

What, exactly, is your response? That there is no inconsistency? Or that the inconsistency is the result of scared suburbanites? And if the latter, how is that an excuse for the inconsistency?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Shit. He makes documentaries too?

Wrong Mike. you're talking about the one where the officials call foul on the other guys even when no one does anything wrong.

I'm mean the mike who calls foul on the officials even when they do nothing wrong.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Not Me
The thing I find so entertaining about you Dems is that you admit that if Kerry's own actions are publicized, this is not good for his chances to be elected.

Nope. First of all, I don't think there is are any secrets about this. It has been all over the place. Second, Kerry's Vietnam experience typifies America's Vietnam experience. He went. He fought. He came back. And he had second thoughts. This will shock no one.

There is no spin here.

Have you seen the film? 'Cause I really doubt it. In fact, I would suggest that this quote from your article is highly suggestive that this is not true,

""For 33 years, we've been saying that how Kerry portrayed us was utterly false. It was purgatory of the worst kind. It was slander," Sherwood said. "But no one wanted to talk about it. Everybody ran for cover."

When the truth about Kerry is known, he will be a reviled figure. Even you Dems don't defend what he did. You just hate Bush so much that you will tolerate this vile man as your candidate.

Kerry doesn't excite many democrats, but I have only heard a handful say they dislike the guy. And none of them have said this based on his peace activism.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
actually that probably hurt moore's reputation more than it hurt carter's, didn't it? close call i know.

As a friend noted at the time:

"Oh, look who's seated together? It's Mr. Nobel and Mr. Taco Bell"

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Adder
I know this is your schtick and all, but I don't even see your point. Sebby says there is an apparent inconsistency in republican policy that favors state's rights on some issues (e.g. abortion, guns, civil rights) but favors federal enforcement in other areas (e.g. drugs, gay marriage).

What, exactly, is your response? That there is no inconsistency? Or that the inconsistency is the result of scared suburbanites? And if the latter, how is that an excuse for the inconsistency?

Two things.
1. Sebby didn't mention gay marriage as far as I know. That said, iIt ain't my morality, and I do agree that its hypocritical for the state's rights people. OTOH, importing something (narcotics) into this country is inherently a federal territory.

2. The only serious non-criminal voices I hear for legalization are from the hard Right libertarians and economists (I'm somewhere in this mix). Yet, its the Republicans who push Federal drug laws? Who you talkin to? This is the pot calling the white porcelain sink black. No matter, don't accuse me of being in favor of federal drug laws (see below).

There is an inconsistency in the drug thing. The trick is, it ain't my inconsistency, and it ain't the hard Rights. You see any prominent Kerry supporters (whose brains aren't fried) backing either legalization or proportionate penalties for buyers/users? The compromise in this country is that we don't target the buyers/users the same way we target the poor who are the vast bulk of sellers. You want to see this house of hypocricy fold quickly? Start throwing felonies on the buyers.

But this is all of us calling each other's parties names. Why don't we just agree on the positions I previously set out:
1.) Legalize or shoot everybody fairly, but get your hands out of my wallet;
2.) Get the government out of the marriage business, and call civil unions, uhm, civil unions;
3.) And let communities define their own morality. Get rid of Roe.

You guys seem to do great right up til you get up to the larger question of Roe. And Roe itself is a great hypocricy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, what DOES "Kerry" mean?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I know absolutely nothing about FCC regulations pertaining to broadcast TV transmissions, licenses regarding same, etc., but -- wouldn't this run afoul of the equal time requirement? Can Kerry force Sinclair to run "F9/11" in response?

It's about Kerry. Bush can demand equal time. Equal, and good, time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was sort of amazed by that. On the one hand, the anti-Castro feelings aren't being fed enough by Bush - that seems to be complaint #1 - and then the travel restrictions, which were his (admittedly poorly aimed) attempt to hurt Castro, end up pissing off the anti-Castroites. So, they vote for Kerry? Seems self-destructive - or have the anti-Castro feelings subsided so much that it's no longer a factor?

Everything I've read on the subject suggests that the anti-Castro feelings have become increasingly less important as a motivator for the Cuban-American vote in Florida over the past few years and will likely continue to do so. After all, its been 40+ years now -- the adults who fled Castro are mostly gone. The Cubans born and raised in South Florida aren't exactly desparate refugees stuck in camps in the desert. [Plus, they HATE the new travel & cash regulations.]

Also, re the Florida vote in general -- non-Cuban Hispanic-Americans are more and more numerous and prominent in Florida over the past decade -- very different attitudes and issues.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041011/D85LDJ680.html

If this airs, it spells doom for Kerry.

You think most people don't know this? Anyway, I don't think it will hurt him with either his base or the ABB crowd -- which is not completely overlapping.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You think most people don't know this? Anyway, I don't think it will hurt him with either his base or the ABB crowd -- which is not completely overlapping.

A thirty-minute docu? I think it's going to start bumping up against outrage-fatigue. If this gets spun as just more shit from the Mad Swifties, he's gonna get the sympathy vote from it.