Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 He was seated next to ex-United States Democratic president Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention! He was given more press than any other Kerry OR Bush supporter. Like it or not, he DOES represent your party. There's a great cartoon and it showed the democratic donkey lying in bed with Michael Moore and he says "How did I get here?" the title was "Farenheit 9am" 112798[/snapback] He can be seated there, but he doesn't represent my views. Why didn't they sit Rosie O'Donnell next to Carter? That would have made more sense!! Retards... no WONDER Howard wants the DNC position! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 No, they are much more under the table than that. They say one thing on television, when all of America may be watching, and quite another on the campaign trail. Karl Rove, you know the "arhicitect" of the "mandate" admitted as much on "Meet the Press" last week. There was a time when campaigning in churches on Sundays was frowned upon (that ickey "seperation of church and state" that the Republican party cleverly works around), but was instrumental in securing president Bush a second term. I honestly don't know what Falwells' role was at the RNC (not even sure he had one), but he was a very vocal and visable supporter of Bush during the campaign. John Kerry never embraced Moore, or "Farhenheit 9/11" publicly, and in fact did not endorse the film, and claimed to never have seen it. As disingenuous as that might have been (and Bush was just as disingenous throughout the campaign), the Bush campaign made no attempt to distance themselves from the evangelicals, and in fact encouraged them, by appealing to their extremely conservative values. In 2000, these same people were concerned that Bush was not socially conservative enough. 113743[/snapback] What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says" 114215[/snapback] Or maybe that was the seat that had the best chance of withstanding the load for the entire show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says" 114215[/snapback] You are likely correct. And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere. Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate". While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention. The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion. There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all. The Republican party, it appears, made a great effort to appear as a bit more moderate than it really is, at its' core. Within 4 days of the end of the election, both the president, and his boss...err, Karl Rove again promised that they would pus forward to get their constitutional ban on gay marriage. Very few, Republican or Democrat, find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life, yet the president forges on. Most feel that it is an issue that should be left up to the individual states. The president, it appears, is pandering to the evangelicals. Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country. There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country. There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits. 114581[/snapback] He is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 You are likely correct. And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere. Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate". While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention. The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion. There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all. The Republican party, it appears, made a great effort to appear as a bit more moderate than it really is, at its' core. Within 4 days of the end of the election, both the president, and his boss...err, Karl Rove again promised that they would pus forward to get their constitutional ban on gay marriage. Very few, Republican or Democrat, find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life, yet the president forges on. Most feel that it is an issue that should be left up to the individual states. The president, it appears, is pandering to the evangelicals. Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country. There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits. 114581[/snapback] You can't compare Michael Moore to the "evangelical right" as a whole. They kept people like Falwell out of sight because he is on the extreme end and does not represent the base of evangelical Christians like myself. GW never hid the base of evangelical Christians, as he himself has never been afraid to quote scripture and mention God. Evangelical Christians like Frist and Santorum have not been hidden - those men are much more representative of evangelical Christians than Falwell. Using your theory, you would equate Bill Frist to Michael Moore, which is ridiculous. I would also disagree with your views on gay marriage. If you read the particulars of why GW is seeking the constitutional ammendment, he is doing so because the courts are currently not allowing states to decide the matter. States are passing gay marriage ammendments and then having the courts strike it down. GW is correct in saying that if the activist courts are not going to allow the states to decide the matter, then the only course of action is to go to the Constitution. John Kerry and GW believed the same thing, that it should be left up to the states - but John Kerry refused to recognize that the courts were taking that right away from the states. GW recognized that and realizes the only step to combat that is to ammend the Constitution. How is it "pandering to the evangelicals" when over 40 states now have passed gay marriage laws? How can you say "very few . . . find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life" when over 40 states have passed these laws? Don't you think the supporters in those 40+ states are angry their vote is being nullified by activist judges? The majority of the American people, not just evangelical Christians, want marriage defended and yet a few unelected officials are witholding their right. This is not about pandering to one group, it is about giving the majority a necessary solution. Just to verify GW's stance on the issue, here is a link to one of his radio addresses that clearly explains it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...7/20040710.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 You are likely correct. And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere. Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate". While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention. The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion. There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all. The Democrats are not a party of inclusion. Look at what they've done on abortion. There was a steady contingent of pro-life democrats just 15 years ago. Now they are treated like pariahs. Bob Casey (the Democratic governor of an eternal swing state - Pennsylvania) had to speak at the RNC because he was pro-life. What the Democratic party tries to do is to appeal to its voters through grouping - you are this race or sex or sexual preference or economic status, and so we will clearly be better for you in that context because we will do this for your group (and thus elevate you). If you identify yourself as an individual that places his/her group statuses secondary, I suspect you're more likely to vote Republican. Even though this administration has been atrocious on spending, there still is a better fighting chance backing the Repubs than the Dems if you feel the federal and total tax burden is far too excessive. The Dems need to stop assuming they have the intellectual high ground and start fighting for it again. I'm never buying that they are progressive though. They continually want to raise taxes and spending and increase the amount of involvement and particpation that government has in controlling people's economic decisions and redistributing wealth. Just what are they progressing towards????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomper Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 God bless such a great American!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Juat another way for this big fat slob bastard to take more money from the sick and twisted luney left. What is wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country. There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits. Wait.......Dont ALL Presidents do this? Dont ALL Presidents have an "agenda" or "vision" for the country that we elect him to implement? Why is Bush "dividing the Country" when he does it? Oh yeah...."Bush Bad....FLIGHTSUIT!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Further proof that young and stupid is no way to go through life. 113628[/snapback] Yes, it's much better to be old and bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yes, it's much better to be old and bitter. 118173[/snapback] Your point? I'm neither old, nor bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Your point? I'm neither old, nor bitter. 118245[/snapback] Denial is not just a river in Egypt. You're only as old (and/or bitter) as you feel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Denial is not just a river in Egypt. You're only as old (and/or bitter) as you feel! 118923[/snapback] Or as other's perceive, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts