This is old news.
Saved this a while back. Let the DU zombies get a load of this.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Democrats, the Violent Party
This week, Erik Alterman and his friends at the Nation remind their liberal
protesters not to be violent at the Republican Convention in New York City.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
You can see the article for yourself. Where does it say that violence is
actually wrong? It doesn't. Instead, the writers say that even though
Republicans deserve to be treated violently, liberal readers should be refrain
from violence because it is less politically effective.
You can extrapolate two things:
a) The party of peace and love is actually not interested in the democratic
process. Instead, they view non-violent political participation as a means to
an end.
b) The left wing opposition to the war is a total fraud, considering that
they've already decided in their own minds that violence against we Republicans
is appropriate.
You only have to look at the history of the Kmher Rouge, Russia 1919, Germany
1919, China's the Great Leap Forward, to see what Democrats really want.
As Erik Alterman's blog pointed out, here's what Democrats are really saying on
their web sites:
"If we kick their ass in the early part of the week, we're going to inspire
people to come out into the streets and join us.... Harassing the s**t out of
the GOP delegates is going to create a mosaic of interesting, militant
resistance."
"We need to destroy the model of what 'normal people' think of protest
movements: all that sign-holding, standing around and chanting slogans."
"Who gives a f**k about some voter in Missouri? How about the billions around
the world who are f***ing tired of the U.S.A.?"
No wonder they want to take away your guns? Will you let them?
|
and this
http://tutakai.typepad.com/tutakai/2004/07/democrats_bigge.html
Democrats' Biggest Weakness -- Their Extreme Supporters
In the build up to the Democratic National Convention, NPR's "Talk of the
Nation" today was focusing on the question, "what would make you watch the
conventions?" The response from the left-leaning callers to the show was both
revealing and distressing. More to the point, it displayed a critical weakness
that threatens to undermine John Kerry's campaign for the White House.
Specifically, not one but several callers stated openly their desire to see
violent protests as a central component of convention coverage. That's right --
they want mayhem, assault, and vitriol instead of political debate and
discourse. One caller, a mild-sounding middle-aged woman, put it in suprisingly
forthright terms:
"I want to see more protests representing the will of the people [sic] like in
1968...I want to see it like in Fahrenheit 9/11 with Bush's car being blocked
and pelted with eggs..."
When angry slogans, "direct action" protests and blind hatred are all that can
be mustered as the reason to elect John Kerry, it is a very bad sign for his
campaign. Many of us dislike President Bush's policies, but nowhere near a
majority of the electorate is willing to sign up for a campaign that is
dominated by "hate Bush" rhetoric. Unfortunately, the struggle to stop those
elements from taking over the public face of the Democratic Party has been
grinding onward all through the primaries and continues to the eve of the
conventions. Howard Dean was initially bouyed by the energy of the rage-fueled
protest subculture, but was ultimately consumed by the backlash within the
party to such images. Imagine what might happen if the protesters in New York
and Boston succeed in making it appear that the Kerry campaign is similarly
angry and empty. Anti-Bush protesters (some 250,000 of which are targeting New
York for "direct actions" during the Republican Convention) may turn out to be
Karl Rove's best friends.
While it is certainly valid to criticize the overly scripted nature of modern
political conventions, the protest scene seems increasingly to be a narcisstic
end in itself. Fringe characters pose as representing the mainstream and puff
themselves up with self-importance while demanding (and often receiving)
sympathetic coverage from sensationalist or politically biased media. At that
point, political debate dies and campaigns descend into the maw of negative
attack ads not just because of cynical professional political operatives but
because the most visible voters are demanding exactly that. Moderates are
turned off and alienated by a political sphere dominated by red-faced,
screaming buffoons spouting vapid slogans, violent calls to action and vain
conspiracy theories.
In 1968, scenes of rioting in Chicago (cited as an exemplar by many anarchist
wannabes targeting New York right now) drove voters away from the liberal but
solidly pro-defense Hubert Humphrey. In 1992, the elder Bush was undermined and
the White House lost in the aftermath of Patrick Buchanan's infamous "culture
war" convention speech. In their 2004 blind rages against George W. Bush,
leftist protesters threaten to do similar damage to the candidacy of John
Kerry. In times of international terrorism and war, association with violent
protests in New York is precisely the worst possible association for the
Democratic Party.
|
I love it when the insane rambling idiots from the left make a spectable, its only going to hurt them in the end.
I hope (added that for garandguy because by saying that he says it makes me a troll)
|
