I have no desire for Moore to "mend fences with his critics." His critics have never seen his movies, heard him speak, or read his newsletters. Moore IS part of the "grassroots Dem party" and let's not forget it. He has as much right to express an opinion as anyone --- the DLC, Bush, O'Riely, and the whole bunch.

Lest we forget, Moore's first pick for Pres. was a General. Ever meet a General who was too far left for you? Then, you didn't have much active duty, did you?

Thanks,
Richard

As long as Moore can spout off his political opinions to the world he is fair game to be shot down........................

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

This is a great thread. KirkVining's quote was his best yet. (and he usually has good ones) Amazing how little the difference between those of us on this board feel toward our gov't. We do need to make the public take a larger interest in our gov't. More importantly, we need to teach the young the absolute need of this.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

boneheaddoctor:

And so are we all ---- even you sir.

Thanks,
Richard

The article was written by Joe Trippi, the former manager of the Dean campaign. Right now the battle being fought inside the Democrat Party is between the corporate-sell outs led by the DLC, and the Dean organization which is advocating rebuilding the party from the grassroots on up, as an Internet-centric people-financed party that represents the ideals in that article. It is probably going to get ugly, but it needs to get done. Dean wants to build a party that will appeal to Southern white working class people as well as the Northern dems and blacks. In order to do that, the Dems need to stop playing the protected-minority of the month game, stop opposing gun rights, drop affirmitive action, and stop playing up to vocal minorities.

I agree Kirk, but I am a little dubious to the integrity right now of the USA voting populace. Even as close a place as this forum you have dedicated conservatives who ignore any and all forms of the truth, regardless of their merit. I don't think the populace can handle the truth. They need to be spun. This is why a grassroots effort just will not work in this day and age. The numbers just won't back it up enough to win major elections. So ironically you need to play the deception game just to be able to get into power in order to make the changes that would prove benficial to those who are deceived.

I think the dems need to settle the inner strife in their party by compromising. The dems can only be as powerful as the repubs when they have the cohesive, all for one attitude the repubs enjoy now.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

You say this as if there are not just as many liberals, independents, and "others" that are equally oblivious to certain "truths".

And as we've discussed before, the nature of "the truth" is often quite dependent on one's point of view. "Facts" and "truth" are NOT interchangeable terms.

Just because your candidate did not win, you imply that the voters must be morons?....Your comment is such an elitist, arrogant, condescending way of thinking, it makes me want to vomit.

You seem to have a serious "superiority complex" problem.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Actually, facts and truth are supposed to be interchangeable. If a fact is not true, it is not a fact.

The level of education on the issues of the average voter in both parties is dismal. Moron may be a little harsh, but its not far off.

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

You and I can look at many of the same FACTS concerning the Iraq situation.

I say that our actions are justified, and consider this to be "the truth".

You say that our actions are not justified, and consider that to be "the truth".

People can look at the same set of facts, but may come to quite different conclusions about "the truth".

See what I'm getting at?

Regardless, I firmly stand by my assertion that his comment was arrogant, elitist, and condescending.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Conclusions drawn from facts are generally considered opinion.

Many, if not most, of the "truths" that many people cling to are nothing more than strong opinions.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

The Democrats attempt to change opinions. The Republicans have a huge operation dedicated to changing the truth into lies. The Republicans are winning.

Whatever.

I think you're giving the Democrats a lot of credit and/or benefit of the doubt that NEITHER of the major parties deserve.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

4 years active duty. One year active reserves. One year inactive (decided to get an education on Uncle). Grew-up in a military family--dad retired after 20 yrs in Navy. G'father was a cavalry officer during WWI, chasing Mexicans in S TX. Father and uncles were Navy and Army officers in WWII and Korea. Brother was an infantry capt. in West Germany under (then) Col Shinseki.

Yeah, I've seen the military.

Does military experience mean that other people should defer to my opinion? Heck no. Folks who never spent a moment in uniform can have a much better grasp of the use of the military in diplomacy and war than a buncha military folks. Does being a general mean that you will necessarily be a good civilian leader? Heck no, look at U.S. Grant or Andrew Jackson--they sucked as president. And who would want a MacArthur as president?

Does military experience endow one with special insight into military matters? I doubt it. Look at the argument in the Pentagon over configuration of forces. Six years ago there was serious contemplation of retiring aircraft carriers as obsolete, high-value targets. That argument was very effectively championed by several retired Air Force officers turned professors. The argument was annhilated by the war in Afghanistan--no Air Force aircraft (except heavy bombers) were combat effective in Afghanistan until we secured airbases in Afghanistan. The air war was a Navy show run from carriers.

The current debate over the mission of the Army and its configuration is another example. Really smart generals and colonels have argued about it for nearly 20 years--since the collapse of the USSR. On one side are the supporters of heavy infantry and heavy main battle tanks. They envision battle between massed troops on the plains of asia. On the other side is the light, highly mobile high-tech quick reaction forces with heavy dependence on SF. The supporters of heavy infantry point to domination and occupation of Iraq as requiring large numbers of heavy forces rather than smaller numbers of light forces.

Is there an exact solution to either problem? Probably not. Both are very messy and highly dependent on world events.

In any case, our military is run by civilians--thank goodness. They will decide when to deploy and how to arm the military--not a buncha eggheaded colonels.

My so called condescending views are based largely on this fact.
Bush refuses to consider anyone elses point of view.
That in my book is a grave weakness. It also makes him much more susceptible to bribes with money (which makes for a more successful politician). People like him usually view monetary earnings/power with self worth since they have no ability/education to see it differently.
Having W. as a president just shows the world that we americans are so arrogant that we just cannot view values in any other manner than our own. This upsets cultures with different values than ours, they fear an unwarranted attack.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!