Too Hot for USA Today
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-26-2004 - 8:03pm |
The column that won't be printed:
Put the speakers in a cage
Posted: July 26, 2004
4:15 p.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39644
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.
Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists – with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.
A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton, and even more eventually to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.
As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the U.N. Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.
Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone."
I thought this was a great idea until I realized the "nut" category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy – all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for "nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party."
Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.
For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting "Allah Akbar!" Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.
With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying "digital Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush – in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.
The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the Kool-Aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.
Only one major newspaper – the Boston Herald – reported Gore's "Brown Shirt" comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing "both" Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and "both" are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)
The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. "Support the troops," the signs say, "bring them home."
That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5 percent who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much – I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much – I think they should go home.
Walking back from the convention site, I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks – who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the "American."
I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.
Renee ~~~

Pages
Ok, Lesson #1: George W Bush != Republicans. Moore's criticism has been centered on The PNAC led Bush Admininistration.
Having read all of Moore's books over the last 6 years, he's been no more critical of Republicans in general than he has of Dems in general and share's Nader's belief that the two parties are very similar.
Having said that, *IF* Moore even comments on the RNC convention (As if anyone even cares what he thinks). I will be one of the first to be critical of any language on the level of Coulters should he go down that road.
I've noticed that the most criticism of Moore, is from those who know the least about him. His record for fighting for middle-class Americans and against corporate crime means more to me than his bashing of the PNAC led Administration in power right now.
Do you really, honestly think they can be compared so directly?
I'm not surprised USAT pulled it. It's pretty hateful, even for Ann.
Glassy
Disclaimer - I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11, so this is based on what else I've seen of Moore. He's going to be on O'Reilly tonight, so that should be interesting.
I know they wanted Coulter to spice things up a bit, but as is her norm, I think she went a little above and beyond the call.
I agree with some things that Coulter says some of the time, but I really don't like when she gets on her extreme horse and says giddy up. That is usually when I stop listening.
<>
One more time -- USA Today wanted to add some spice to their convention coverage so they specifically hired Coulter to cover the DNC and Moore to cover the RNC.
<>
The point is, is USA Today going to hold him to the same standard they imposed on Coulter.
<>
How interesting. I've noticed that most of those who defend his attacks on the administration are the most virulent of Bush haters.
Renee ~~~
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
BOSTON — It was a match-up the media and political observers have longed for. No, not George W. Bush against John Kerry. It's Michael Moore (search) against Bill O'Reilly.
Moore, the director who made "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) and created one of the election season's biggest uproars, said he wouldn't go on "The O'Reilly Factor" until O'Reilly saw the entire movie. And he said any conversation would have to be aired without any editing and with the opportunity for Moore to ask O'Reilly questions.
All of the demands were met and Moore sat down with O'Reilly in the FOX News sky box high about the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Following is the full transcript of their meeting:
MICHAEL MOORE: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues.
BILL O'REILLY: The issues… all right good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
OORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.
MOORE: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…
O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth
MOORE: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –
O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –
MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –
MOORE: But that was your question –
O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –
MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –
O'REILLY: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –
MOORE: No I’m not, there’s no dancing
O'REILLY: He didn’t lie
MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true
O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources
MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody
O'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too
MOORE: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”
O'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?
MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book.
O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
MOORE: I know who he is.
O'REILLY: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?
MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...
MOORE: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.
O'REILLY: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –
O'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie
MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie
MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that –
O'REILLY: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—
MOORE: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—
O'REILLY: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead
MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question
O'REILLY: OK
MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.
MOORE: And, but what were they killed for?
O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people
MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator
O'REILLY: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction
MOORE: But that was the reason
O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction
MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat
O'REILLY: That’s right
MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?
O'REILLY: It was a mistake
MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.
O'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents
MOORE: So we agree on that
O'REILLY: but that is the historical nature of what happened
MOORE: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?
O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional
MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake
O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that
MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead
O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that
MOORE: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me
O'REILLY: Ok, now we are wandering
MOORE: No, but my point is –
O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question
MOORE: But why? What did they die for?
O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –
MOORE: No, that was not the reason –
O'REILLY: That’s what they died for
MOORE: -they were given –
O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake
MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –
O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question—
MOORE: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.
MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?
MOORE: Uh huh.
O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.
MOORE: But we didn’t go after them—did we?
O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.
MOORE: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O'REILLY: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O'REILLY: How?
MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was—
O'REILLY: Why was that?
MOORE: That’s my question.
O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.
MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.
O'REILLY: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O'REILLY: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?
MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O'REILLY: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.
MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done.
O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.
MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.
O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.
MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.
O'REILLY: I know you are but—
MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O'REILLY: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—
MOORE: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself—
MOORE: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
MOORE: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—
MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorist—don��t you know anything about any of that?
MOORE: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.
MOORE: Now come on.
O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
MOORE: How do you know that?
O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.
MOORE: How do you know that?
O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.
MOORE: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---
O'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
MOORE: The people rose up.
O'REILLY: why? Because they went bankrupt.
MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—
O'REILLY: Alright alright.
MOORE:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.
O'REILLY: One more.
MOORE: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.
O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—
MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up?
O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—
MOORE: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__
O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame—
MOORE:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—
O'REILLY: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?
MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O'REILLY: I would.
MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O'REILLY: That’s right.
MOORE: Where’s the recruiter?
O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me.
MOORE: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.
O'REILLY: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…
I found one major flaw with Moore's arguments and point of view. His entire argument is based on the fact that he has hindsight, and nothing more.
Heck, if the government would invent a machine that would allow a President to see the outcome of a certain action years down the road, and to see what the actual facts were leading up to certain events, I think this country may be a much different place.
<>
Exactly. The 911 Commission said that we were unprepared for 911 because
Renee ~~~
Pages