Posted on 06/29/2004 3:04:50 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Wait till tomorrow, people will be saying Moore who? Spiderman 2 opens and it got excellent reviews. Welcome to oblivion Michael.
Libs are all still under the same rocks they've always been under.
I don't know. I am anxious to see how far the mainstream media will go to keep Moore in the highlight.
Michael Manure is about DONE!!
Words fail me. ROTFLMAO!
Christopher Hitchens had the best review I've read, hands down.
No question that the lunatics have taken over the asylum in the Democratic party. The number of sensible, honest, decent Democrat politicians has shrunk to virtually zero.
No, 2, Zel Miller and Ed Koch.
"Christopher Hitchens had the best review I've read, hands down."
Yes, his seems to be the definative one. I've never seen so much praise for a debunking. I'll have to search it out and read it.
They've officially left the building. Check it out - from RAT underground -
Unravel This!
June 29, 2004
By Terry Dyke
It's certainly no secret that the radical right was on the rise for years before it finally found its way into the White House. Those who are dismayed to watch what's happening now also tend to find it baffling: "How do they think they can get away with that - what can they possibly be thinking?"
But there is some welcome clarification to be found in Paul Krugman's new book, The Great Unraveling. It seems that we experience a disconnect when trying to view these actions simply as new tactics in a familiar political game. What's actually happening, Krugman argues, is a "political sea change," a fundamental transformation of the game itself.
Krugman shares some insight he gained from Henry Kissinger's doctoral thesis, a treatise on Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleon. "[T]he first three pages of Kissinger's book sent chills down my spine because they seem all too relevant to current events," Krugman writes. The book examines problems that a stable political system has when faced with a "revolutionary power," one that does not accept the legitimacy of the present system.
It soon became clear to Krugman that one should regard America's right-wing movement - which now in effect controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary, and a good slice of the media - as a revolutionary power in Kissinger's sense. That is, a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system.
"The dominance of that movement," Krugman writes, "changes everything: old rules about politics and policy no longer apply." He mentions a further insight from Kissinger that "explains so well the otherwise baffling process by which the administration has been able to push radical policies through, with remarkably little scrutiny or effective opposition." In Kissinger's analysis, what happens is that members of the established order find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. [They] therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; ...as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstances are considered balanced and sane... But it is the essence of a revolutionary power... that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.
It's ironic that "revolutionary" is often taken as a praise-word, something progressive and humanistic. But revolutionary change can also come from the other direction, and this is what it looks like. Typically enough, those who are paying attention get labeled "alarmist," despite the fact that, as Krugman shows, the alarmists have been right every time so far, and the appeasers backed further into a corner. What we're seeing is not just politics as usual, but a concerted bid to overthrow the current system. Once we understand that, things begin to make sense. Krugman develops a few guidelines for trying to make sense of it all:
"When you're dealing with a revolutionary power, it's important to realize that it knows what it wants, and will make whatever argument advances that goal."
"A revolutionary power, which does not regard the existing system as legitimate, doesn't feel obliged to play by the rules."
"A revolutionary power... also doesn't accept the right of others to criticize its actions. Anyone who raises questions can expect a no-holds-barred counterattack."
"Don't assume that the usual rules of politics apply." War profiteering, Enron games, and conveniently-timed terror alerts are all par for the course.
"'But they wouldn't do that!' protest reasonable people - and a normal regime wouldn't. But we're not dealing with a normal regime here, we're dealing with a revolutionary power."
This puts a whole new light on November 2. It's not just another election to pick the best candidate for President. It is a referendum to decide whether to carry on with the republic as we've known it, or to endorse the revolutionary movement that came to power in December of 2000.
Once this regime gains the legitimacy that eluded it four years ago, there is no turning back - the American republic will have become something fundamentally different. After that, we can assume nothing, not even free elections. Vote well, and you may be able to vote again.
What we're seeing is not just politics as usual, but a concerted bid to overthrow the current system.
No mention of the Hildabeast's health care takeover...
Fox News reported tonight that Moore claims that he is not a Democrat. However, voter registration records in New York show that he is registered as a Democrat.
More importantly, he is still registered to vote in Michigan.
Where I live, that is a crime.
A hanging slider that Horowitz crushed out of the park.
The lunatics took over with McGovern and then when Clinton brought in the white trash the takeover was transformed into organized crime. I get ill listening to our local DNC shills. I used to think we could take the party back and restore some sense and honor but I really think we've reached the point where we try to organize with Nader. At least he is clean.
I thought that that the definition of a conservative was that they support a strict, literal interpretation of the constitution. Did someone change something when I wasn't looking?
Maybe Krugman thinks that since the definition of liberal is no longer accurate that he should redefine a conservative as well. Who knows, this man's writing has become totally unintelligible.
What sensible opposition? If they are out there, I sure haven't seen or heard them. Aside from this one phrase, Horowitz' article is superb.
bookmark bump
Liberals are where Liberals always are,... undermining truth, justice and The American Way!
Nicely written.
The democrat liberals will completely ignore it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.