Redstate

Actually, I've always thought that Michael Moore was getting his talking points from bin Laden.  Well, except that Moore seems to hate America more than al Queda does.

Too just bad we can't make Moore go live in a cave in Pakistan.  I'm sure he and Osama would make great roommates.

Sorry, just feeling a little punchy after our Seahawk victory.

Ever noticed, that when people turn evil and nasty, they generally turn very cynical first? It seems to be the prerequisite. And once they've become thoroughly cynical, and thoroughly hateful towards others, like a Michael Moore, or a Harry Belafonte, or a Janeane Garofalo, evil is just around the corner. And giving verbal aid and comfort to American's enemies is fairly evil, I think. Maybe a hint that you're becoming evil, I'm guessing, is when Osama bin Laden starts quoting you as an authority. That's time to worry a bit about what's in your heart.

I know you may be exaggerating for effect, but I don't agree with the characterization of Michael Moore hating America. I am not a Michael Moore fan, but I just don't buy that.

the Democratic Party, that is, every regestered one.  But he might represent Jimmy Carter, or  the other way around.  If he is singular in his beliefs he certainly had a lot of top Dem admirers at the Washington premier of his movie.

If part of your definition of America is that we are a capitalist country (IMO it is, and it is a big part of the reason we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world), I have news for you, Michael Moore hates capitalist America and all of our wealth and power.

When Osama says things like

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws

and

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

It seems pretty clear he has more in common with the radical right, not the radical left.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are men of good will...

the leadership of the Democratic Party.  You cite the turnout for 9-11, I would cite his seat next to Jimmy Carter in the Presidential Box at the D convention.

Also, please - assuming you have nothing constructive to do - find one citation from any Democrat in a leadership position of anything Mr. Moore has said.

Islamists openly promote death to people who aren't of their brand of Islam.  They have laws on the books, which they aren't bashful about enforcing, that mandate the death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers.

The religious right (I assume that's who you're referring to) calls certain kinds of conduct "sin" but supports equal opportunity laws to insure no discrimination.  You will surely say that opposition to "gay marriage" is the moral equivalent to publicly executing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, but no rational person will agree there is any similarity.

I find it interesting that folks on your side of the aisle choose to make comparisons that are so outlandish that you flush any credibility you could possibly ever have.  You can put your tinfoil hat on and go back to posting about Bush engineering 9-11 with the help of Israel.  Feel free to criticize my point, but both positions are completely without merit.

He doesn't hate America.  He hates himself, like OBL.  He is consumed by guilt and shame--again, like OBL--over the wealth bestowed upon him by his country. He gulls and incites the poor and ignorant to do--like OBL-- as he says, and not as he does.  But he doesn't hate America. He needs America, like a spoiled child needs indulgent parents.

I never said that Osama's philosophy is the SAME as that of the fundamentalist Christians. I said it has more in common with it then to Michael Moore's philosophy. Christianity and Islam have a lot in common. And I have no problem with anyone who wants to fully accept either faith as Absolute Truth, as long as they don't try to force that opinion on others. That is currently the biggest difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Islamists (and it is a very big difference). Fundamentalist Islamists seem to embrace violence as a means to spread their religion. Fundamentalist Christians in America try to "impose their faith on others" through legislation. (I use that phrase only because I cannot think of a less extreme wording at the moment.) That's fine. That's how democracy works. I may personally disagree with laws banning homosexual marriage (for instance), but I do believe that people have a right to try to get such a law passed, if they want.

And claiming that left-wingers "hate America" which you are at least implying in another post in this thread, is much more outlandish than anything I have said here.

Excerpts from the latest Bin Laden tape.

This (truce) will prevent the loss of millions of dollars, billions of dollars that go to corrupt businessmen in the United States.     Bin Laden

"If each of us cared about the public interest, we wouldn't have the excesses of Enron; we wouldn't have the abuses of Halliburton." - Ted Kennedy (D) 07/28/2004

"He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation." - Dennis Kucinich (D) 04/03/2005

Our situation is getting better and better and your situation is getting worse and worse.     Bin Laden

"Military victory there (Iraq) is not possible." - Dennis Kucinich (D) 04/03/2005

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course." - John Murtha (D) 11/17/2005

"the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," - Howard Dean (D) 12/05/2005

The result of the opinion polls are wise and Bush must follow it. Iraq has now become a point of attraction to all qualified people the mujahadeen who by the grace of God were able to infiltrate all the security measures that were taken by Coalition forces.     Bin Laden

"His (Bush) war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world." - Dennis Kucinich (D) 04/03/2005

Anti-war candidate Howard Dean (D) said Monday "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer," directly contradicting President Bush and drawing the wrath of two Democratic presidential rivals. - 12/16/2003

So you see how Bush was misleading people.     Bin Laden

"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States." - John Kerry (D) 06/19/2003

"Kennedy told the AP. "This (war) was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." - Ted Kennedy (D)09/19/2003

The reason why we didn't have any such an operation in the United States is not because of security difficulties; the operation will take place and you will see such operations by the grace of God and by the will of God.     Bin Laden

"We killed the Patriot Act," boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote. - 12/17/2005

It seems pretty clear he has more in common with the radical right, not the radical left.

This shows two things.

First, you actually know nothing about the "radical right," whatever that is. (It's supposed to be "reactionary right." Keep up.)

Second, you believe you're in a forum that allows the rabid wielding of Pointy Sticks at conservatives. You're not. That's a free warning.

I can quote directly from the Kos diarist and make a case for the points being leftist:

Osama bin Laden on women in the workplace:

You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.

Osama bin Laden on AIDS:

[Y]ou have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention

Osama bin Laden on gambling:

You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

So he's a feminist, thinks that AIDS was cooked up in Sekrit Gubmit Labs, and is against companies gambling with investments, which sounds like a reference to Enron or something.

Anyway, we can natter about moral philosophy all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that Osama's not one of our legislators, he's a military enemy. And on our military policy, he's pretty much indistinguishable from the Left.

Christianity and Islam have a lot in common.  Oh really?  I'll have to check out our local mosque come Easter.  I'm sure the celebration of the resurection of Christ will be enlightening.

With respect to the imposition of faith, you could not be more wrong.  If you equate seeking to have the ability to talk about Christmas in the public square or allowing my son to pray at his public school because HE wants to, then you're right.  But in fact, you're wrong.  You are obviously upset by the pushback against the secularization of our society by the NCC and PFAW.

With respect to your final comment, I will stand on my position that the far left in this country routinely espouse hate for traditional American values.  

You've figured us all out.  All Democrats are intentionally going about trying to hurt people.  We were going to call ourselves the Evil Party, but that didn't poll well.  What, you didn't get the memo?

Sorry, but the far left do hate the America that we have today and they will do and say anything to change it.  They are the master of lies and distortions.  They either knowingly or through ignorance are aiding the Terrorist who want to kill us.  If the Liberals in the USA were in a Muslim country and said the thaings that they now are free to say in the USA they would be killed.

So why do the Liberals support their own destruction?

As noted on Moore's website that he is getting a lot of email from soldiers, then why doesn't he print them for all to see.  Do they exist?  Do they support Moore or condemn him?

Thankfully, even though a Liberal Democrat, Matthews sees Moore for what he is, but he will pay the price for saying so.

only it came from Howard Dean and said that Republicans are evil - but that`s ok, right?

I don't remember RedState approving of that statement, however.

about the same time you got your lobotomy.

Get yourself a decent dictionary and spend the rest of the day trying to figure out the difference between "EVIL" and "GOOD WILL".  I never said or implied that any of the folks listed, or the left in general, was EVIL.

The American Heritage Dictionary says this about EVIL:

ADJECTIVE:

e·vil·er , e·vil·est

Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.

Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.

Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

NOUN:

The quality of being morally bad or wrong;wickedness.

That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.

An evil force, power, or personification.

Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

It says, about GOOD WILL:

NOUN:

An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence.

Cheerful acquiescence or willingness.

A good relationship, as of a business enterprise with its customers or a nation with other nations.

With respect to the individuals I cited, I was and am unwilling to attached the traits of EVIL.  I have no problem with pointing out the concepts of "benevolence", of "kindness", of "willingness" and of "a good relationship" run counter to the public pronouncements and policy statements of said individuals and in general, of the party they represent.  Ask Mrs. Alito what she thinks.

Bottom line, it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.  The national Democratic Party hasn't yet learned that lesson.

between the opinion of a diarist and that of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee? Moral equivalence at its finest.

the important point to remember is that, while Moore may garner some support and encouragement from members of the military, they tend to be conservative leaning by about 80-20.

Rmember, John Kerry served and so did Jack Murtha.  Jimmy Carter was a Naval officer.  Every family has a "deranged aunt" they try to keep in closet.  The left just seems to pride themselves in airing out the old bat (think of Helen Thomas).

Apparently I am in danger of being booted off this forum just for replying, but I gotta try.

Christianity and Islam have a lot in common.  Oh really?  I'll have to check out our local mosque come Easter.  I'm sure the celebration of the resurection of Christ will be enlightening.

Yeah, just like the Easter celebrations at your local synagogue. But Christianity and Judaism have nothing in common, either, right? You are again misinterpreting "having something in common" as "being exactly the same." All three religions come from the same basic root. Believe in the same God. See http://www.centerce.org/ISLAM/ChristianComparisonAndEvaluation.htm for a good overview of similarities AND differences. You might try talking to a normal, everyday Muslim about his or her religious and moral beliefs. You could be pleasantly surprised at how much you have in common. Particularly as compared to a heathen like me!

With respect to the imposition of faith, you could not be more wrong.  If you equate seeking to have the ability to talk about Christmas in the public square or allowing my son to pray at his public school because HE wants to, then you're right.  But in fact, you're wrong.  You are obviously upset by the pushback against the secularization of our society by the NCC and PFAW.

I am not sure what I am meant to be equating here? But regardless, I don't think we are disagreeing. I think your son should be able to pray at a public school if he wants to. As should anyone of any religion. I don't think there should be time set aside specifically for prayer, though. I am upset by people suing towns for setting up Christmas displays, or schools that specifically "outlaw" Christian holidays, but not Hannukah or Ramadan, or whatever. That is just stupid. Being "forced" to look at a Christmas tree, or even a manger, in the town square doesn't infringe on my rights to believe whatever I want to believe, so I have no problem with it.

With respect to your final comment, I will stand on my position that the far left in this country routinely espouse hate for traditional American values.

Which is not the same as hating America. "Traditional American values" have changed over the years, mainly as a result of "liberal" ideas. I love America, but think it can be even better if we continue to challenge certain traditions. You love America and maybe think we are beginning to challenge too many traditions. A perfectly valid opinion shared by most everyone on this forum, I am sure.

The exhortation to be "a people of manners, principles, [and] honour" is a description of those from the right and not the left, eh?

OK, then.

Equating right vs. left to Republican vs. Democrat for the moment, Republicans are far more likely to include the language of manners, principles, and honor in their party platform. (Though I suspect the Democrats may try to capitalize on the Abramoff brouhaha by talking about it in the coming year.) It's one of the things I like about Republicans. That doesn't change my point, though.

So why do the Liberals support their own destruction?

Well, i don't get the sense that they are supporting their own destruction; i think you meant to say they are supporting the terrorists. I get the feeling they are trying to stop their own destruction.

Here's the thing... the vibe from the progressives is that the conservatives are far more dangerous to the nation than the terrorists are.  

The problem is, while the terrorists may attack and kill a few thousand, and seriously affect several thousands of their closest friends and relatives, the majority of America is left rather unscathed (this argument will be moot when the terrorists upgrade to NBC or GNR technologies). Conservative (or liberal for that matter) policies end up affecting all Americans, not just several thousand people.

That's not the same as supporting terrorists, or even terrorism. I'm fairly positive that liberals are against terrorism. However they see a bigger threat that must be dealt with first. I believe this is why they appear to side with or agree with terrorists; they're more afraid of YOU.

As the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

as an aside, i personally find it sickening that the partisan political system in America is responsible for perpetuating the feelings i described, thereby enhancing the divide between the two big parties.

The moral weight of the opinion doesn't change by the status, although the implications of what should be done in response obviously do.  You having the opinion that the other side is simply evil is equally dishonest and immoral as Howard Dean having it.  That Howard Dean's views matter more in the world of public opinion is irrelevant in this determination.

I'm not going to respond to your points and start a troll war.  Needless to say, I think you're wrong, and I think this general concept that you are an example of is bad for politics and the country. Leon H is well aware of my views on this issue, and is well aware that I feel this is a wrong that occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, so I'll leave it at that.

too much lawyering :)

I don`t believe that Democrats are evil and never said so, but when the Democratic Party`s national chairman says that Republicans are evil and still keeps his job that tells me that enough Democrats agree with his opinion, and thus must be as reprehensible as he is. Does this not follow? Even so, you snarkily dismissed the diarist at the same time you must have been aware of Dean`s comments. I don`t exactly know what you mean by moral weight, but while it may be accurate for you to say the relative potential effect of people`s opinions is irrelevant such a statement begs the question - To whom? For the purposes of scoring debating points you may be correct, but in terms of the effect on people`s lives, the difference in effect matters a great deal. To ignore that fact is to succumb to moral equivalence.  

The leadership of the Democratic Party has consistently labeled the leadership of the Republican Party as EVIL or CORRUPT or UNPATRIOTIC or STUPID.

Please see Howard Dean, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Nita Lowey, Nancy Pelosi,  Harry Reid for starters.  Note, that I'm not reaching for liberal colunmists like MoDo & Company.  These people are the leaders of the national Democratic Party.

Please provide citations where the Republican leadership as spoken in kind.  They have said that Democrats are sadly mistaken or that they are wrong, but they've not impugned their motives or their character.

Fundamentalist Christians in America try to "impose their faith on others" through legislation.

Heaven forbid anyone should try to impose their beliefs on anyone through legislation.  Think of all the child abusers, rapists, thieves, and murderers we would inconvenience.

I just suspect you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others.

The Republicans have attacked the Democrats at least as much and as often.

Examples:

Karl Rove

Karl Rove

Or any time Bush says we can have a "debate" about the Iraq War, but if you question it or disagree with his progress you are anti-American and a terrorist and hate America.  BUSH LINK

++++++++++++++++

Neither position by either side leaves it open for debate.  If you are a Republican you are evil.  If you are a Democrat or disagree with Bush, you are anti-American.

as I suspect you may be confused by mine.  I mention that he may not represent every single Democrat but i would think my post certainly indicates that he has plenty of support where it counts.  You mention Carter, why do you think I would allude to Carter if not for the convention.  Citations you request, but they are unnecessary if one says essentialy the same or similar things.  Endorsements are more pertinent than citations and the presence of Carter and much of the leadership of the party at his movie for me constitute endorsements.   In no way was my post intended to seperate Moore from the Democrats and one way or the other this should clarify matters.

If you actually read what I wrote, you might realize that I agree with you.

Karl Rove specifically says Democrats are not bad people or unAmerican, they're simply wrong.  The column from the Toronto Blade, a reliable source of even handed news coverage, isn't worth a comment.

You have the audacity to compare the leadership of the Democratic Party calling Republicans evil, corrupt, stupid, and unAmerican with the Presidents political adviser telling the Democrats that they are "wrong".  In the world outside of your fever swamp wrong does not equate to anti-American.

You argument doesn't measure up to pathetic.

when I read your post.  You're right, we are shouting at one another about how much we agree.

:>)  sorry, my bad.

And spoke out against Clinton's immoral behavior...just like republicans did.

Does that make the RNC "just like Osama?"

Of course not.  

It seems to me that Bush has failed in many respects in prosecuting the Iraq war.  If Democrats didn't try to get the President to do better, we'd be lousy americans.

I don't look to Osama for justification of my political views, and I don't think Republicans do themselves a service when they do so.

"complaints" is simple.  They simply are not men and women of good will.  The tenor of their comments are completely partisan with the oft-beaten caveat that they support the troops.

As a military family member, I say hogwash.  Actually, I have a stronger word but I don't want to get banned.

No Democrat, other than Joe Lieberman, has bothered to support the war effort in Iraq.  The tactics of the D leadership in general and Reid, Kennedy, Durbin, Pelosi and Murtha in particular are simply deplorable.  They have a long record of supporting regime change in Iraq, clearly admitting Iraq had WMD's and would use them, that Saddam was a partner in worldwide terror and needed to be overthrown.  But of course a Democrat was President then.  Now they have short memories.

In particular, Durbin and Murtha will never be welcome at our house for dinner.  The idea that Durbin would refer to our troops in Gitmo as Nazis or the equivalent of Pol Pot or Stalin would get his plate in the back yard with the dog.  The dog would bite him.  I would take the dog to the vet for shots.  Murtha is simply a pathetic old man.  His service in Vietnam was honorable, he's forgotten what "honor" means.

I figured you would be able to read those articles objectively and see what I meant.  But let's back up and start again.

Go to websters.com and look up the word imply.  The verb means "express or state indirectly".  So do Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc directly call Democrats wimps, corwards, and anti-American, and just being partisan (and thus you can ignore them) when they state they are wrong?  No.  But they IMPLY the hell out of it.  Americans aren't in the third grade - well most of us anyways.  They understand what is being implied.

Do they directly say you aid the enemy when you criticize them?  Well, yes they actually do say that directly.

So, do Democrats directly say Republicans are evil.  Yes.  Do Republicans indirectly say Democrats are anti-American and cowards and anyone who disagrees with them is both?  Yes.

If you don't see how the Republicans are implying more than just that Democrats are wrong...we've nothing more to discuss.