[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[Chuck Bennett]

On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Patrick Coskren wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Patrick Coskren wrote:
>>
>>> Again... zombietime?  Who the hell are these guys?  Is this some  
>>> sort of parlor game where you pull out some nutball and say,  
>>> because this nutball says he's with the lefties, all people who  
>>> criticize the President must be as nutty as he is?  That's a  
>>> pretty fundamental logical error.
>>
>> The site is just a bunch of pictures of raving anti-bush crap.  It  
>> really doesn't matter who did the website, assuming that they  
>> didn't doctor the pictures.  The problem is the content of the  
>> photo's not who took them.
>
> That doesn't matter.  My point is that the people pictured were not  
> in any way, shape or form mainstream liberals, mainstream "Left",  
> or mainstream Democrats.  They were, in general, nutballs, and it's  
> every bit as dishonest to present them as representative as it  
> would be to present a picture of Terry Nichols, say, as a  
> representative USA gun owner, when 99% of gun owners are perfectly  
> decent people[1].




I'll grant your point that the (silent) majority of Democrats are not  
the bile spewing type in the photos.
Like the majority of Republicans, they just go about their lives and  
do their protesting at the ballot box.


BUT.   The one's that 'are' in the news have no analog on the  
right.   There are no giant parades of Republicans all covered in  
body paint carrying signs that claim that Ried  or Pelosi are  
Stalinists.    Even is we suspect they are..

(Sorry for the mind's image that caused)

Perhaps it's because the rabid component of the left are the most  
visible and vocal, it does give the appearance that they are a little  
less ah.. stable than the mainstream is comfortable with.    As long  
as the silent left doesn't refute what they do, they will get lumped  
into the same pile, and kept out of power.

Don't get me wrong.  Protest all day..  I'll support it.    Rage  
against policy and war that you disagree with.  No problem here.
Take your money from a.n.s.w.e.r and try to recruit for the "Peoples  
Communist Party"  at an anti-war rally and your image is going to be  
tainted and your message marginalized by the company you keep.   
Unfair?  Perhaps.  Lie down with dogs.. get fleas..


Example: 2005 anti-war ralley DC..  <http://www.windchimewalker.net/- 
webpages/9-24-05-antiwar-photos.html>  taken by some lefty that was  
happy with the results and posted her pictures of the rally.     No  
exactly conducive to convincing the main stream of your message no?

Of course that represents, what ,1% if that of the entire left..      
Cindy Sheehan represents 1/300E-6 people but when she is seen getting  
smoozy with Chavez the left looses a lot of the middle people that  
recognize Chavez, Castro etc..  for what they are.


Here is a counter example.

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is  
an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a  
news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General  
Assembly speech on Wednesday.

*diety* bless her little pointed head for standing up for the entire  
country for a change.


or even Charlie Rangel..  Someone I disagree with on almost every  
political issue.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/ 
CBRStatementChavezUNspeech09212006.html

Damn..   That is the right thing to say to Chavez, and a lot of  
people on the left could learn something from this quote.

"Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right  
to attack him personally."

Good for Mr. Rangel.  (something I never thought I'd type)


Oh.. final shot at the whole radical Muslim thing..

"Jesus is not getting near my love pump..   To much contact with  
Lepers..."

(Just to set the tone.)


http://zipperfish.com/free/yaafm12.php   <,<kind of long.. damn  
funny, is a truthful kind of way.



=c=




>
> -Patrick
>
> [1] Mind you, I still think guns should be regulated the way  
> driver's licenses are regulated, but that's a different debate, and  
> certainly doesn't hinge on gun owners being any less decent than  
> automobile owners[2].


Nooooo must... not...  respond...   whew.. that was close.

>
> [2] Who, in Queens, are vicious bastards, one and all.
>


Agreed.  Even the nice one's are vicious behind a wheel.