Michael Moore = Freeper Tool...

[Bush loves Jiang]

One second he was bitching at Al Gore for being "no different from Bush", the next he's giving fellatio to a guy who voted Republican in every presidential election up until 1992.

[Donovan_McNabb]

1. I dont get it either n/t

[cavebat2000]

2. eh

who knows

[FDRrocks]

3. Why is he a freeper?

Wesley Clark wasn't exaclty a politician, now he is. He isn't giving anyone head, btw.

He tried to talk Ralph Nader out of campaigning in swing states, you know. I guess you do not! Apparently! Al Gore was not very progessive, ask people in Africa that are stricken with AID's. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And callin a spade never changes.

Moore isn't a freeper, he is a progressive. And after the failure of 2k, in which he now views an incumbant Republican, he is rooting for the most viable realistic candidate.

[SideshowScott]

4. I COMPLETELY Disagree...And this is someone who dislikes greens

Mike Moore is a freeper like the pope is a Satan worshiper..I disagreed with his backing Nader but for the most part I agree with what he has to say. He wants nothing more than Bush out of the white house. He supports the little guy and trys to make sure workers of America from getting screwed.. Like anyone we should not agree 100% with there are some points that I dont agree with Moore on but he is NO freeper!

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Holy crow, get off your high horse and join reality

"OOh, OOh, I dno't like candidate <a> so anyone who says she/he likes candidiate <a> must be a freeper TOOL!!!!"

Anyone can scream tirades made of pure bullshit.

I'd rather listen to someone who isn't pissing and moaning and bellyaching and saying something that's so blatantly idiotic and sour-graping that it's offensive.

Christ, Reagan was a Democrat for a boatload of years. You gonna worship him? You're basing hatred of Moore on his liking of a guy who used to vote republican - 10 years ago - so you must be bellyaching to erect statues of Reagan, right? No, I didn't think you actually would. But that's what you sound like.

People change; some people aren't tied to "group identity" but instead follow their own convictions.

Get with it.


:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:boring::boring::boring::boring::boring::boring::boring:
:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[countmyvote4real]

7. Nail it.

You got that one right.

(And I still prefer to fly into Washington Natinal Airport.)

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Damn right about national!

Friend of mine, when he lived in DC, still used National when going to the airport. Cabbies would always say, "You mean Reagan?" And he always said, "No, I mean National."

When I'm president, the only thing Reagan left will be the giant Ron Reagan Memorial Symbolic Toilet on the mall lawn to be a perpetual reminder to the American people of the risks and failured of jingoistic faux-Christian ideology based on hate as a way to run a country.

[solinvictus]

19. Ex-Republican voters

Well, if it's the norm to attack ex-Republicans who intend to vote a straight Democratic ticket this year, then I guess we might as well throw the election. I left the Republican Party because their policies were detrimental to our country. I voted Republican in 1988, 1996, and in local elections. FYI, I voted for Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000 out of disgust for the existing candidates. There are a lot of us out there; people who are beginning to see that Republicans care about no one but donors. They intentionally press the hot button social issues to play conservative for publicity, but ultimately all they want are corporate profits and cheap labor to drive the stock market up for their paymasters. It's wrong headed to attack General Clark for his political views a decade ago and worse to do so against Michael Moore.

[oxymoron]

6. deleted by user

nevermind

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Michael Moore has a massive ego and

an ethics deficit. We may share many viewpoints but he's not someone I respect or like.

Still, I won't hold his endorsement against Clark any more than I hold his 2000 endorsement against Nader.

[ima_sinnic]

10. what a bunch of crap

Michael Moore has shown himself to be committed, passionately and eloquently, to the cause of justice and equality for all--hardly a freep position. Distortions, out-of-context remarks, and snide sideswiping make your own position questionable.

[tinanator]

13. not true

you havent been paying attention, have you?

[DrBB]

11. Ah the joys of simplistic purism

How comforting it must be to be so pure. I sometimes envy zealots and fanatics their uncomplicated views of the world.

By the way, aren't hateful anti-candidate screeds supposed to go in GD-2004?

[Meritaten1]

12. Clark opposed genocide

and was responsible for saving many, many lives at a time when the Republican congress and many in the Pentagon did not want to get involved for mere "humanitarian" reasons.

Michael Moore knows who he is endorsing. He's no freeper.

[Lefty48197]

27. According to this post:

Opposing genocide is a REPUBLICAN ideal, and we Democrats, thereby support genocide.
What a sack-full this post is.

[Meritaten1]

29. No, that's not what I said at all Lefty48197

Opposing genocide is a human rights position. I don't care what label you put on someone who opposes ethnic cleansing, genocide is a crime against humanity, and everyone of any political stripe should be against it. I am a Democrat and I would never suggest that Democrats support genocide.

You misunderstood the above post, I suspect, because you assumed, incorrectly, that Clark is a Republican. He's not.

If you want more information about Clark's courageous stand against genocide, check out: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ and look up the guest editorial dated Thursday, January 8, 2004 "Guest Opinion: Gen. Clark's stand vs. Milosevic praiseworthy" by Dan Christman and Chuck Larson.

It states, in pertinent part: "The easier wrong would have been to ignore the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, as we had in Rwanda. Clark knew the Pentagon would be reluctant to engage...He knew he was putting his career on the line...His moral courage was instrumental in stopping another round of ethnic cleansing..."

[zanana]

14. I'm skeptical about him.

The more books he writes, the more he turns into a salesman for them. I realize that he has to make money off his writing, but have you seen his website? It seems to be more about advertising his books than anything else.

[amber dog democrat]

15. I am not buying it

Either
M Moore is a loose cannon, and I may have issues with how he communicates, but I can not ever see him as a tool of the free republic any more than the Clintons.

Anybody but Bush,

[Q]

17. How can Moore be a 'loose canon'?

- He's an independent...not a Democrat. He has probably done more to expose the Bush* administration than any number of Democrats.

- I see this thread as representative of the vindictiveness of some on the left...who can't seem to tell the difference between friends and enemies.

[HootieMcBoob]

23. you're absolutely right

this is what's wrong with Democrats and the left in general. If Moore was a repub or a Right-wing whatever they would have his back. We should be damn thankful that we have somebody like him doing what he does. He can support whoever he wants to support. He's not a Democrat he's a patriotic American and he's supporting the candidate that he believes is the right one for the job. I for one am a Democrat and I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions on Wes Clark.

I didn't agree with him on Nader but that was his choice as an American. I can certainly understand where he was coming from. Gore was not fighting back against Bush in the last election. Look at the debate where he basically agreed with Bush on everything. There was a reason so many people voted for Nader last time around. Gore has since woken up. Moore said on Charlie Rose that he would support strongly any of the non-Lieberman candidates that gets the nomination.

We need to stop always playing into the hands of the RNC. I understand some people don't dig Moore but for Democrats and liberals and progressives in general he has committed his life to getting our message out there and he's getting it to a wider audience than anybody else. I wish we had many more people like him.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. ahhhh i love all these "fair and balanced" opinions

[PSR40004]

16. Not a freeper but confused...

I don't know what a freeper is but I take it's some sort of republican and he's not. But clark is nothing but a republican in sheep's clothing, I can't believe we could be so close to electing a republican just because he decided the best chance for advancement was switching parties.

[Kazak]

18. I thought the Freepers (stupidly) wanted Dean...

So, why isn't Moore endorsing Dean?ü

[Kahuna]

20. I take it you don't like Wesley Clark?

:shrug:

[59millionmorons]

26. BINGO

Of course this was what this poster is really trying to say.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. GET REAL!!!

[PatrickS]

24. Michael Moore is naive

The way he goes about things shows how naive MM is. Certainly the way he sees us Canadians is, at times, insulting.@

[59millionmorons]

25. Jeane Shaheen voted for Nixon

I voted for a republican once, does this make us less Democrats? If so, good then I wont vote. Good luck winning MO without my vote.

[Indiana Democrat]

28. Michael Moore is a clown.

He's an embarrassment...I wish he would just go away. He's our Michael Savage.

[thebigidea]

30. he may be YOUR Michael Savage, I don't seem to need a Michael Savage

[Old and In the Way]

31. Not bad....

Two character assassinations in one sentence.

[John_H]

32. But Al Gore, who endorsed

Dean, who he expects to loose big to the chimp, in order to get in on his organization and fundraising for '08 is a real uncynical guy, right?

[JanMichael]

33. Flame bait and a candidate bash.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming.

[Darranar]

34. Doesn't this belong in General Discussion: 2004 Primary?

And supporting Clark does not make someone a freeper tool.

Clark is far from my favorite candidate, but he is still a Democrat, and his proposals on a wide variety of issues are far from freeperish...

[Moderator]

35. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator