Fahrenheit 911

this is gonna be moore's next film and is going to bring more controversy than his Oscar speech (he denied that the boos came from the audience).
I'm looking forward to this though I havent seen Bowling for Columbine yet :(


Filmmaker Michael Moore knows he created a firestorm by denouncing President Bush and the war in Iraq at Sunday’s Academy Awards. But he believes he didn’t have a choice.

Expectations ran high for him to say something about the war. “Jack Valenti told me backstage afterwards that he wouldn’t have expected any less.

“I didn’t have a speech prepared, because I was convinced I was going to lose,” Moore said during a half-hour interview Thursday.

But when Bowling for Columbine was named best documentary, Moore knew he had to do something. He had already suggested to the other nominees that they join him on stage, as long as they agreed with his position against the war.

Then he went into a speech he’d given at smaller awards venues. His audience Sunday was huge. So was the reaction.

“Nearly everyone’s been great to me, from actors at the ceremony and the party afterward to people on the street. One lady in Flint, Mich., yesterday yelled ‘Go Bush’ at me.

“But that’s OK. At least people are thinking politically.”

Moore agrees that the Oscars ceremony is not normally a place for political commentary. “And if I had won the Oscar for a movie about birds or insects, I’d say something about them. But I made a movie about violence -- and global violence -- so I felt I had to say something about that.

“I just hope I generated a discussion about Mr. Bush and the war,” Moore added, as he leaned back in a chair in an office at the University of Rochester.

As for charges that his remarks were unpatriotic, Moore said, “It’s unpatriotic to remain silent when you believe something is wrong. Silence is duplicitous. I want all our soldiers to come home alive.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator,” he added, “and I hope he’s removed as soon as possible. But nonviolently.”

Moore also believes he gave something up -- the chance to enjoy winning an Oscar. “But I love this country and I want it to remain free and open.”

His next project is guaranteed to be controversial. “I’m making a film called Fahrenheit 911, the temperature at which freedom burns. It’ll be about how Bush is using 9/11 and those 3,000 lost lives as an excuse to move along his own conservative agenda.”

Originally posted by Hakeem
[B]

His next project is guaranteed to be controversial. “I’m making a film called Fahrenheit 911, the temperature at which freedom burns. It’ll be about how Bush is using 9/11 and those 3,000 lost lives as an excuse to move along his own conservative agenda.” [/I]

can't wait to see this one :p

Sweet as woman juice. I can't wait to see this.

Full of anticipation for this one.

Anyone know when Bowling for Columbine comes out on DVD?

I think mid april (europe)

Right nom..eherm, if you have ways. :rolleyes: :D

it comes out on the 15th in the us, im renting it as soon as i can, b/c im too damn cheap to just buy it.

15th of april, okay only two weeks.

it's easy to get bootlegs of all those tight movies, but ain't nobody gonna bootleg bowling for columbine (i'm not talking about kazaa).

hey guys, I got an update on Farenheit 9-11 that a spy posted in one of the sites I check daily:

Originally posted by "Nobody" @ www.aint-it-cool-news.com
"Its about the Bush family, their extensive connection with the Bin Laden family and the environment within the USA post Sept 11. He has footage of the Bush family dining with the Bin Laden family. It elaborates on the business relationship between the families that has existed for many years. It explores how a Saudi charter plane travelled the US immediately after Sept 11 and how the FBI were pissed that they couldn't interrogate its Bin Laden passengers as they were ferried to Paris. It looks at the way in which the government used the events of Sept 11 to push their own agendas.
Moore expalined that since COLUMBINE and its appearance at the Oscars he receives 6,000 pieces of fan mail a day and gets given pieces of footage that he can't talk about now but will make this perhaps the most incendiary documentary of all time. In his words 'If I don't make this, I may as well stick my head in the sand like everybody else."

During question time one audience member questioned his ability to finish the film, to which his answer was "Any attempt to stop it will just create more interest." He also said he would explore the reasons as to why Blair put his arse on the line to support Bush and make a film that is funnier and more shocking than COLUMBINE.

Thus began the distributor buying frenzy. FARENHEIT 9-11: THE TEMPERATURE AT WHICH TRUTH BURNS will be ready for Cannes next year and release Sept in North America (prior to the elections I'm told)."


It seems good and very provocative. looking forward to it

BBC.co.uk link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3685633.stm)

Aaron, Elder, the floor is yours.

Argh, damn them. Michael Moore is awesome, read two of his books and watched Bowling for Columbine.

Yeah, read about this a couple of days ago... all I have to say for now is: how predictable.

F U C K Mickey Mouse! :f***: :f***:

He should put it on Al Gore's new TV station.

I like Michael Moore, super guy :)

all yall shut up. Michael Moore is a twat. Disney should concentrate on making the next The Great Mouse Detective Movie. Now that would be class

*Waits to see how long it will take before this topic turns into an Iraq discussion*

:crazyboy:

They make too much of a big deal out of it. Disney is afraid of losing Republican viewers. That's all.

meh, CNN international even had a live interview with Michael Moore this morning. They should focus on more important issues.

Bowling for Columbine has become part of the school curriculum at my school....every media class/politics/english shows it and discusses it ad-nauseam

Originally posted by -Vince-
They make too much of a big deal out of it. Disney is afraid of losing Republican viewers. That's all.

meh, CNN international even had a live interview with Michael Moore this morning. They should focus on more important issues.
Do you not think that freedom of speech is important, because it's really nothing less than a gagging order placed on him by Disney?

Just find another distributor, I'm sure they'll be queuing up.

The loud mouth lardass already knew that Disney would not released it since last year. Moore has a knack to make himself a victim to benefit his own good. He comes up this bull because it would generate hype and publicity for the film.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040505/D82CMK380.html

Originally posted by Yossarian
Bowling for Columbine has become part of the school curriculum at my school....every media class/politics/english shows it and discusses it ad-nauseam

That's too bad because other serious matters need to be discussed and not some move made by a fat ass commie.

:confused:

Originally posted by monkee
Do you not think that freedom of speech is important, because it's really nothing less than a gagging order placed on him by Disney?

Just find another distributor, I'm sure they'll be queuing up.

Okay, here is where I come in.

Freedom of speech is important of course... but nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that "Disney, a privately held company with stockholders to answer to, must distribute a movie that many of those same stockholders would disagree with."

Michael Moore always wants to be the victim. Now he will turn this into a way to line his pockets and get on tv saying how the evil republican attack machine at Disney is suppressing his rights.

Someone finally needs to call this fat bastard out on his lies, twisting of facts, of misrepresentations. I can't believe he even gets TV time on CNN.

Originally posted by Moron
F U C K Mickey Mouse!

Nah, you'd only look Goofy....

i was really looking forward to seeing this.

Don't worry, someone will distribute it.

I don't care much for Moore as a person, but this should be a very interesting movie, links between Bush family and Bin Laden family that have been extensively researched in Left wing circles for a number of years now.

People can say waht they like about Moore, but the real issue is the links between the families. Interesting that on 9/11, for example, Bush Snr. was having a meeting with Osama's brother. :)

"the world is currently 'led' by the grandson of Nazi Germany's largest foreign donor."

:crazyboy:

Originally posted by Elder
Michael Moore always wants to be the victim. Now he will turn this into a way to line his pockets and get on tv saying how the evil republican attack machine at Disney is suppressing his rights.
It's not his fault though is it. Disney, and their concerns about upsetting the Republicans, have played right into his hands. I agree with you that Disney don't have to allow Miramax to distribute it, but it's easily going to be interpreted as another case of the Republicans using their influence in a way that is against freedom of speech. It's just too easy for him in this case, it's pretty much a win-win situation for Moore. He's not to blame for many plcs in the US being so jumpy about upsetting the Bushes that what they end up doing is censoring things that shouldn't be censored. Anyone in his situation would take advantage of it to put pressure on them to let the film go out.

As for being the victim, you pretty much are when it comes down to poor legislation and poor decisions. He just highlights it with a bit of fun.

Someone finally needs to call this fat bastard out on his lies, twisting of facts, of misrepresentations. I can't believe he even gets TV time on CNN
I can't see why he shouldn't get time on tv when Bush gets plenty and he's becoming a black-belt at lying, twisting facts and misrepresentation.

"Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution."


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901



Enough said. This is not cencorship, and Disney isn't a Republican company. Come on folks.

i like Moore...somehow, he'll get me lots of money.

/Krispy Kreme stock holder.

anyway...it has to be done

http://www.soccergaming.tv/attachment.php?s=&postid=1240939

carry on.

If it is a publicity stunt then I wouldn't be particularly surprised, and it's working. Everyone knows that Moore does this sort of thing, he's had tv shows in the UK (and probably the US), not to mention his films, where he's up to stunts to try and corner companies and people and make them uncomfortable. It works, it looks to me as if he's put Disney in an awkward spot.

Think of it what you will, whether Eisner said that a year ago or a few days ago, but Disney are worried about distributing it for some reason, and the reason sounds like it's funding from what the press have been saying. Particularly from Republican backed tax breaks.

Moore's timed it for maximum impact and publicity. Does that make what Disney are seemingly doing right? On the surface of things he's highlighted the nervousness plc's have about saying/releasing anything that questions the US govt's actions, there must be a reason for that? What he's obviously doing, or trying to do, is show that pressure from the US administration on these companies lead to censorship. It has 1984 overtones.

Originally posted by Elder
That's too bad because other serious matters need to be discussed and not some move made by a fat ass commie.

:confused:

well I don't really care about him but I think what he explains in the movie it's a serious matter, serious enought to deserve some time in school.

Originally posted by Bobby

http://www.soccergaming.tv/attachment.php?s=&postid=1240939



and there is the anti-moore arguement :o

naw, no arguement. I just wanted to post it.

Originally posted by Bobby
http://www.soccergaming.tv/attachment.php?s=&postid=1240939

Ah yes, America's favourite liberal fatass in his natural habitat. I'm lovin' it! :crazyboy:

He wishes he could eat as much as me.

Only thing I remember about Michael Moore before all the hype after Bowling for Columbine was a few years back, on Christmas Eve, people with electronic voice boxes singing Christmas carols outside a cigarette CEO's house. Genius.:mrpimp: :rolleyes:

It looks like this story is soon coming to an end.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/12/disney.moore.reut/index.html

Michael Moore is a great guy but doing things like this is stupid :D

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the fact that people are making it sound like Moore was censored. Give me a break. At no point did Disney coerce Moore to change the content of his "documentary"(:funny: ) nor did they deny him the right to distribute it. Just because they dont want to back Moore's propaganda doesnt mean they are censoring him.

Originally posted by Moron
F U C K Mickey Mouse! :f***: :f***:




:rockman: :rockman: :rofl: :rofl:



THE HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH........MY *SS!!!!!!


52$ TO WALK AROUND AN OPEN AIR MALL ALL DAY........


DISNEY LAND S*CKS

Originally posted by PhiLLer
*Waits to see how long it will take before this topic turns into an Iraq discussion*

:crazyboy:


:rofl: :rofl:

it is only a matter of time isn't its

Originally posted by PScott
The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the fact that people are making it sound like Moore was censored. Give me a break. At no point did Disney coerce Moore to change the content of his "documentary"(:funny: ) nor did they deny him the right to distribute it. Just because they dont want to back Moore's propaganda doesnt mean they are censoring him.


good point.....censorship means something very explicit

Cannes applauds anti-Bush film

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/moore.film/index.html

You gotta love the frenchies. (H)

Who cares eventually we will all get a chance to see the film

I like Moore's stuff, you cant sit through an episode of TV Nation or The Awful Truth and not laugh or cry or both.

From the begining Roger and Me you could see who he was and what he was a shameless self promoter + comedian + entertainer with a political view like Al Frankin, Lorne Michaels, Dennis Miller, etc etc etc........(Also Bill O'Reilly but he isnt funny)

So to start saying Moore is this and that and accusing him of stuff is really the pot calling the kettle black - he does it, they do it, we all do it

I beat Elder, Rhizome, myself and many many others have posted stuff here that either disagrees with our own views but its worth it to win a political discussion or smudge facts

Moore has posted (and to which I posted on this forum many times so i wont again) a letter about 6 months ago about the so called critics (or main critic as the case may be) for Bowling for Columbine - so at least he backs himself up.

Originally posted by zul-aid

Moore has posted (and to which I posted on this forum many times so i wont again) a letter about 6 months ago about the so called critics (or main critic as the case may be) for Bowling for Columbine - so at least he backs himself up. Are you talking about that wacko attako crap? All he does is attack his critics while never really addressing the issues of why they are critical of his "documentary."

Michael Moore is an ass.

Actually he did more then once:

Peter Jennings is Reckless
On January 22, 2004, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said the following:

"Mr. Moore said that President Bush [was] a 'deserter.' Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts."


But now the facts have come out. And more facts keep coming out every day. The definition of "desertion" is being AWOL for more than 30 days. AWOL is less than 30 days. Webster's dictionary defines "deserter" as:

"One who forsakes a duty, a cause or a party, a friend, or any one to whom he owes service; especially, a soldier or a seaman who abandons the service without leave; one guilty of desertion."


How long will it take for Peter Jennings to apologize to Mike and to the country?

Reckless? Not supported by the facts? That description, it seems, only belongs to Peter Jennings.

Also here is the Wacko Attacko article:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Yes he does attack his attackers with what they attacked him with.

Whos the ass now???

“Fahrenheit 911” – Where freedom of speech meets capitalist interests

“…in our country that when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act -- and we act in a way where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media.” (Excerpt from Bush’s interview with el Arabiya TV, 5th May 2004.)

The current American administration has, upon numerous occasions, sought to promote their apparent belief in freedom of speech. Throughout the criticisms against them that have been world wide and widely held, throughout the internationally supported demonstrations against their policies and even though they have been shown to be wrong, ill-advised or incompetent time after time, their unnerving reply has been their love for society’s that have the freedom to speak.

Indeed, the United States message to the world is not simply a militaristic one but their blunt military bludgeoning has been accompanied by a slightly subtler, ideological message. However, is a true belief in freedom of speech and its principles really existent behind the rhetoric, or is rhetoric as far as freedom of speech goes?

In practice, the US administration, and all secular governments for that matter, believe in freedom of speech as long as it does not conflict with their interests, or when it is particularly in their interests to do so. This commitment to free speech quickly evaporates when faced with a direct threat to their interests by what is freely being said.

Internationally the US administration has encouraged the Qatari government to pressure popular channels such as Al-Jazeera to change their content. We have seen the United States set up its own media in the Middle East to propagate their propaganda. More recently we have seen them physically close down a newspaper in Iraq that published unfavourable articles.

In fact, the list of US opposition to free speech when it opposes their interests internationally is long and well documented. However, today in the United States, as domestic freedoms are eroded away, so too is that of free speech. The notable difference is that while the United States criticises countries for their overt policies contradictory to free speech, simultaneously the US administration uses covert policies to control the information and opinions circulated amongst their population.

Michael Moore, an American journalist who is famed for his opposition to the neoconservative agenda and their policies, recently completed a film bought by Miramax, which was highly critical of Bush and his entourage, particularly since 9/11. Yesterday, Disney announced that it would block the publication of this film, named “Fahrenheit 911,” and would not permit it to be shown in United States cinemas. This is clearly for its criticism of the current administration.

Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel said that Disney’s chief executive, Michael Eisner was particularly concerned that it may upset Florida Governor Jeb Bush, George Bush’s brother, and that this could endanger tax breaks that Disney receives for theme parks, hotels and its other interests in Florida.

“Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn’t mean I listened to him.
“He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney Corporation and that’s why he didn’t want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn’t want a Disney company to be involved,” said Emanuel. (source IHT 6/5/4, Radio 4 Today programme 6/5/4.)

Secular powers often fail to hold up the principles they claim to embody such as freedom of speech domestically, more so failing internationally and in many cases actively supporting those who abandon it such as the barbaric dictator Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan.

But free speech should also be scrutinised intellectually. It is not an expression of justice but rather is a blunt emotional statement, which is not particularly useful in elaborating what people can and can’t say. It is for this reason that contradictions appear and hypocrisy becomes apparent.

Even in Western secular democracies, necessary restrictions on free speech are accepted without argument, such as laws on defamation, libel or perjury. The truth is that laws concerning what people can and can’t say are necessary in any society.

Justice is achieved by elaborating in a clear fair manner the acceptable and unacceptable use of communication within a society, clarifying the specifics of these rules and the principles upon which they are based and observing these rules in a consistent manner, regardless of personal or governmental interests. This is further complemented by making the government truly accountable to the people, via the judiciary, and not to the large financial investors and powerful companies, as is the case in most democracies.

Indeed in the Khilafah state, these rules must be derived from the Islamic texts such that they would be independent of the interests of the governing bodies and these bodies would become bound by these rules in an identical manner to the rest of the people in the society.

Thus confidence and peace can be achieved within the society and the Khilafah state would not suffer from the hypocrisies, inconsistencies and contradictions which dominate such areas in democratic, secular, capitalist states.

Khilafah.com Journal
22 Rabi al-Awwal 1425 Hijri
11 April 2004

Would he even consider it? http://www.moorewatch.com/~ryanm/index.html

Good e-mail from Ryan Latimer.

Subject: Fan support

Greetings from sunny (ha!) Battle Creek, MI - Mr. Moore's own home state.

I'll cut through all of the BS and just come out with what I've wanted to say for quite sometime now. I've visited Moorewatch.com for months and have supported the cause through its entire tenure. To say that I've agreed with 110% of everything would be a lie - I am my own person, and I have always lived by the rule that no two people in the world can fully agree on every little issue in existence (guns, health care, war, gay marriage, etc).

I'll be totally honest here, but what I'm about to say has nothing to do with me being from Michigan.

Michael Moore used to be a very clear-headed, independent thinker who raised some very valid points about world issues. I consider myself a right-wing conservative with a handful of "liberal" beliefs, mostly dealing with environmental issues. The great thing about Moore's earlier work (Roger and Me, The Big One) is that the issues raised in his films could be taken in by any side of the political spectrum.

Yes, there are money-grubbing, selfish big fish in the corporate world who wouldn't think twice about closing down a plant at the expense of a small Michigan city in order to make $200 million instead of $175 million (for example) - and it really has little to do with the ongoing right vs. left line of thinking.

Yes, there are selfish Fortune 500 CEOs who sleep at night knowing they are paying poor foreign workers dimes and nickels to make shoes for Americans who complain about paying more at the gas pump.

And yes, I even believe Mr. Moore raised some valid points in Bowling for Columbine about firearms. I really am torn on the whole issue of guns and I fully support either stance with an understanding attitude.

Then it happened. Michael Moore just got plain weird.

Gone was the Moore that equally blew the whistle on the wrong-doers of America (conservatives, liberals, independents), and in came the radical, fist-shaking propagandist who alienated a good deal of his respecting public.

With the new Moore came new ideas:

Bush is a deserter, Bush is the dumbest and worst President ever, Bush is a murderer and is going to Hell (just read his new book), God fully supports abortion, God doesn't want us to say "God bless America", God apparently loves to swear, men are idiots and should be wiped from the face of the earth, people who happen to enjoy guns are all "gun nuts," the Iraq war is all for oil...boy I could go on all day.

I love my country. I believe America is the greatest country in the world. I believe Bush - the man I will be voting for in November - is saddled with the most difficult task in the world right now. He understands the war he is leading is unpopular for many, but its something that must be done and he is willing to put his Presidency and reputation on the line.

In essence, he is trying to protect the ones that mock and spit on him.

Moore is not a liberal. Alan Colmes is a liberal. Joe Lieberman is a liberal. Moore is in the same group as Al Franken, Jeanne Garafolo, and Ted Kennedy - jokers. People who are so disconnected with the world that they blindly fire their hate at anyone who is willing to listen. A man like Alan Colmes, despite out differences in viewpoints, is someone I respect for being a decent human being.

I have no such respect for the jokers, the people who smear you if you dare disagree with them.

I would also be lying if I said I was fully confident of the upcoming November election. I am not. I'm worried that Mr. Moore's new "work" will infect the minds of capable voters to help dethrone the man he so despises. I am relying on Mike Wilson's new documentary to combat this.

I have already given him a few dollars, and I suggest the viewers of Moorewatch do the same. Don't let this man ruin the presidency of a man fighting for the morals and safety of Americans.

I appreciate the time you have given me to vent.

Ryan Latimer
Battle Creek, MI

if Ryan Latimer thinks Colmes is a liberal then think again

(A) Colmes appears on a right wing news channel (Fox)
(B) Fox's owner Rupert Murdoch supports Bush and tells his employers to do the same
(C) Hannity (colmes offsider) is very right wing has about 70% air time and interviews majority of guests
(D) If Latimer thinks Colmes is left wing, he is in for a rude shock when he reads the definition of term.

Originally posted by zul-aid
if Ryan Latimer thinks Colmes is a liberal then think again

(A) Colmes appears on a right wing news channel (Fox)
(B) Fox's owner Rupert Murdoch supports Bush and tells his employers to do the same
(C) Hannity (colmes offsider) is very right wing has about 70% air time and interviews majority of guests
(D) If Latimer thinks Colmes is left wing, he is in for a rude shock when he reads the definition of term.

You obviously know nothing about Alan Colmes. He is as left wing as they get, and just because he is on a so called "right wing" channel doesn't change that. There are meany lefties represented on Fox, but you choose to never notice it. Alan gets all the interviews with big democratic people, Hannity gets the right.

This is why I don't pay attention when people bash Fox. It's obvious you make your judgements based on no knowledge of the channel at all.

PS. Colmes is one of the few people who has a left wing radio talk show... sponsored by who? Fox News.

Thank you very much.

I want to see this documentary!:D

Originally posted by Elder
You obviously know nothing about Alan Colmes. He is as left wing as they get, and just because he is on a so called "right wing" channel doesn't change that. There are meany lefties represented on Fox, but you choose to never notice it. Alan gets all the interviews with big democratic people, Hannity gets the right.

This is why I don't pay attention when people bash Fox. It's obvious you make your judgements based on no knowledge of the channel at all.

PS. Colmes is one of the few people who has a left wing radio talk show... sponsored by who? Fox News.

Thank you very much.

Heres a review of Colmes book on Amazon which sums him up

Whereas many liberal books of its era take on Fox News, the community of conservative pundits, and the Bush administration for being liars or worse, Colmes leaves the mudslinging out. The result is a bit toothless, but the idea of a book that's mostly a case for what's good about liberalism instead of what's terrible about the right is a bit refreshing. There are some problems. Many of Colmes' assertions--Bill Clinton was the best President ever, O.J. Simpson was innocent--seem more planted to provoke Republican ire than part of a constructive argument. Colmes' extensive use of passages from his own show, "Hannity & Colmes," is edited to make him sound as pithy as possible, and quoting one's self as an expert is kind of lazy, really. Key passages from listener e-mails are also included, and while they're often hilarious, Colmes is still cherry picking; the complaints are from violent nutballs and the compliments are from charming folks who use complete sentences. It's also curious how little mention there is here of Sean Hannity, Colmes conservative co-host, who so dominates their shared talk show that a Colmes book feels a bit like a John Oates solo album. In the liberal pantheon, Alan Colmes is no Howard Zinn (heck, he’s no Michael Moore or Al Franken either), but he makes a simple and entertaining defense of the liberal perspective. Now go read those customer reviews. --John Moe

And by the way if Colmes is such a great liberal why does he come out and say on many occasions bush is a great president and has my support.

Fair and Balanced? hahahahahahaha

you will be surprised what you find on the net in 10 seconds
(enough websites to prove many wrong)

http://www.replace-alan-colmes.com/colmes-blog.htm

well, I watched the Ceremony today when QT handed out the prizes. really cool.

Fahrenheit 9/11 took the Palm d'Or with Michael Moore getting a standing ovation again. he got a 25 minutes standing ovation when the film screened during the week.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956.

"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci," Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" took the prestigious Palme d'Or amid sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to frontrunner status.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002. Some critics had speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

With Moore's customary blend of humor and horror, "Fahrenheit 9/11" accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before September 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.

Moore appears on-screen far less in "Fahrenheit 9/11" than in "Bowling for Columbine" or his other documentaries. The film relies largely on interviews, footage of U.S. soldiers and war victims in Iraq, and archival footage of Bush.

15 minute standing ovation, not 25:p
It'll certainly be interesting to see this documentary. I don't really care if it's fiction or fact, it's 99% of the time pretty entertaining and anything anti-bush is good.

Originally posted by zul-aid
Heres a review of Colmes book on Amazon which sums him up

Whereas many liberal books of its era take on Fox News, the community of conservative pundits, and the Bush administration for being liars or worse, Colmes leaves the mudslinging out. The result is a bit toothless, but the idea of a book that's mostly a case for what's good about liberalism instead of what's terrible about the right is a bit refreshing. There are some problems. Many of Colmes' assertions--Bill Clinton was the best President ever, O.J. Simpson was innocent--seem more planted to provoke Republican ire than part of a constructive argument. Colmes' extensive use of passages from his own show, "Hannity & Colmes," is edited to make him sound as pithy as possible, and quoting one's self as an expert is kind of lazy, really. Key passages from listener e-mails are also included, and while they're often hilarious, Colmes is still cherry picking; the complaints are from violent nutballs and the compliments are from charming folks who use complete sentences. It's also curious how little mention there is here of Sean Hannity, Colmes conservative co-host, who so dominates their shared talk show that a Colmes book feels a bit like a John Oates solo album. In the liberal pantheon, Alan Colmes is no Howard Zinn (heck, he’s no Michael Moore or Al Franken either), but he makes a simple and entertaining defense of the liberal perspective. Now go read those customer reviews. --John Moe

And by the way if Colmes is such a great liberal why does he come out and say on many occasions bush is a great president and has my support.

Fair and Balanced? hahahahahahaha

you will be surprised what you find on the net in 10 seconds
(enough websites to prove many wrong)

http://www.replace-alan-colmes.com/colmes-blog.htm

So, your point is what? That this review says that Alan Colmes wrote a liberal book? I really don't get your point...

The review says he is a liberal. I said he is a liberal. eh?

A new Michael Moore is a liar story.... This one is a very interesting read actually. It's from a known conservative, so take it for what you will. But I doubt he's lying. He would have too much to lose if he was lying.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

Fahrenheit 911

freedom burn burn' burn' baby :mrpimp:

god i have absolutley no intrest in watching this films. Bowling for columbine yes seeing as its useful for psychology, this - noo

TROD.

Originally posted by Elder
So, your point is what? That this review says that Alan Colmes wrote a liberal book? I really don't get your point...

The review says he is a liberal. I said he is a liberal. eh?

I said Its my opinion he is a conservative working for fox and that review proved it

Colmes "claims" to be liberal in his book, but like the review says either he or fox edited the book so it wouldnt cause problems
(would any liberal do that??? edit something for the good of the company they work for??? - not likely).

www.fair.org

And though Fox News markets Colmes as "a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary" (FoxNews.com), it doesn't even get much help from Colmes himself. "I think I'm quite moderate," Colmes blandly told USA Today (2/1/95), not long before being hired as the show's left-wing counterweight to Hannity

Is he a moderate left or just plain moderate????
if he is moderate left he would have said it wouldnt he.

oh but dont take it from the horses mouth he even votes conservative too.

Conceding points to conservatives and Republicans seems to be a Colmes specialty.

Following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Colmes (9/28/01) assured former Republican congressmember Susan Molinari that he'd voted for New York City's Republican mayor: "Hold on. Susan--Susan, look, I voted for Rudy Giuliani. I'm a liberal Democrat. I voted for this Republican, Rudy Giuliani." Reminding Fox viewers that he voted for Giuliani is a sort of Colmes on-air mantra; according to the show's transcripts, he's done it at least eight times since 1998.

Colmes sometimes joins his conservative co-host and guests in criticizing the left. When conservative author Tammy Bruce appeared on the show touting her book, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values (4/21/03), Hannity predictably agreed with the author about the blame for declining values: "But, literally, the left is responsible for this." Then Bruce clarified her point: "Well, as I show in the book…it's the left having gone so far to the left." Rather than putting up some kind of resistance to this left-bashing--as one might expect a left-of-center host to do--Colmes instead concurred: "I think in some respects you're right. And you and I have talked about this before."

ofcourse now right-thinking liberal would vote conservative so many times.

considering in todays climate being liberal is such a dirty word and that a conservative would never ever be seen died with a liberal, this is what the top republicans think of Alan Colmes:


In addition to Gingrich, Colmes has won the praise of Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch ("you're great for a liberal"--4/16/01), Republican House Whip Tom DeLay ("you are my favorite liberal"--10/18/99), Christian right leader James Dobson ("he's my favorite liberal"--4/28/03) and, of course, Sen. Trent Lott ("you may be a liberal but you're one of the better ones I've seen on TV"--4/30/03).

A question for our esteem Colmes fan.... why does Colmes defend Trent Lott?

When Lott stepped down as Senate majority leader in December 2002, after praising Senator Strom Thurmond's racist 1948 presidential campaign at Thurmond's 100th birthday party, guest Oliver North appeared on the show to defend Lott (12/23/02). When North blamed "Alan and all of his colleagues" for Lott's downfall, Colmes corrected him: "By the way, Ollie, I defended Lott and said he should not have had to step down." When North responded, "Because you wanted him there so you could continue to kick him around," Colmes cited his own pattern of defending Lott: "Absolutely not. Absolutely untrue. You haven't been watching our show."

but ofcourse this is just my opinion of somebody else's political stance, but really ive backed it up from what he has said and not what he claims to be or what his organisation he works for claims him to be.

Originally posted by zul-aid
I said Its my opinion he is a conservative working for fox and that review proved it

Colmes "claims" to be liberal in his book, but like the review says either he or fox edited the book so it wouldnt cause problems
(would any liberal do that??? edit something for the good of the company they work for??? - not likely).

[b]

Is he a moderate left or just plain moderate????
if he is moderate left he would have said it wouldnt he.

oh but dont take it from the horses mouth he even votes conservative too.



ofcourse now right-thinking liberal would vote conservative so many times.

considering in todays climate being liberal is such a dirty word and that a conservative would never ever be seen died with a liberal, this is what the top republicans think of Alan Colmes:



A question for our esteem Colmes fan.... why does Colmes defend Trent Lott?



but ofcourse this is just my opinion of somebody else's political stance, but really ive backed it up from what he has said and not what he claims to be or what his organisation he works for claims him to be.

Just the idea that you think Colmes is a conservative posing as a liberal who works for Fox is a rich one. Come on...

Of course a liberal or anyone for that matter would take parts out of a book or censor themselves if it will cause problems where they work or for their careers. Do you really believe that liberals always tell everything the way they think it? bah, no way. Not when money and livlihood is on the line.

Are liberals not allowed to vote for conservatives? Wow, he voted for Guiliani.. damn, he was such an awful mayor wasn't he? Seems like he made a good choice, and didn't let blind political ideology cloud that choice. Something you would obviously do. He criticises liberals sometimes? Don't get me wrong, I know you are all supposed to drink the kool aid together with Jim Jones, but if you can't criticise your own party or political ideology when you find something wrong with it, then what's the point of thinking for yourself?

Defending Trent Lott? Oh no... here we go. He said something that was poltically incorrect... he praised a Senetor that was once for segregation... the same guy who renounced that ideology years ago. Just keep in mind what party has a former Ku Klux Klan member in their party.. his name is Robert Byrd and he is a Democrat. He also called blacks niggers about 2-3 years ago.. where's the outrage? Right, who cares because he is a democrat.

I give you credit for trying to back up your arguments. But you really have to do better than that. Conservatives like him because he isn't a potty mouth puke like Michael Moore would be. He is a nice guy, but completely left wing.

wow so many opinions about it when ABSOLUTELY NONE of you HAS ACTUALLY SEEN the freakin movie.

A) Democratcs are as much conservatives as Republicans, same here in Australia the to major parties are both right wing - i vote green

B) Colmes doesnt just attack liberals he attacks their ideology - his own beliefs, and takes a very conformist stance on nearly every political issue.

C) He had voted conservative before September 11th when Rudi was going wrong with destroying freedom of choice in NYC in 98-99.

D) As you agreed with me- dont bite the hand that feeds you, Alan would be seen more political and do his "job" as a liberal and attack Hannity and Murdoch, he chooses not you, therefore taking that into account he isnt liberal.

E) his biggest defenders/supporters are republicans

I certainly dont count Al Frankin and Moore as completely liberal either no matter what you might think..... While Al Frankin gets close to the mark his cocain habit from when he was on SNL clouds his judgement Al is only trying to push democratc agendas and copy Moore, while Moore is an entertainer for the liberals like myself, but is really only an entertainer

When I first came to this forum, i believed myself to be an open-minded liberal who thought people like Moore, Frankin and co. where strong liberal types..... since joining these discussion I have been able to critise people like Moore, whom i looked up to as a hero before SWM and B4C, now i see him for what he truely is and have been able to strengthen my own liberal beliefs and have become an active member of the Greens party - thanks Rhizome, Vagegast and especially you Elder for making it all possible.

Originally posted by zul-aid
A) Democratcs are as much conservatives as Republicans, same here in Australia the to major parties are both right wing - i vote green

green is just throwing away your vote...... vote labour, they're alot more left (H)

Originally posted by zul-aid
I said Its my opinion he is a conservative working for fox and that review proved it

Colmes "claims" to be liberal in his book, but like the review says either he or fox edited the book so it wouldnt cause problems
(would any liberal do that??? edit something for the good of the company they work for??? - not likely).

[b]

Is he a moderate left or just plain moderate????
if he is moderate left he would have said it wouldnt he.

oh but dont take it from the horses mouth he even votes conservative too.



ofcourse now right-thinking liberal would vote conservative so many times.

considering in todays climate being liberal is such a dirty word and that a conservative would never ever be seen died with a liberal, this is what the top republicans think of Alan Colmes:



A question for our esteem Colmes fan.... why does Colmes defend Trent Lott?



but ofcourse this is just my opinion of somebody else's political stance, but really ive backed it up from what he has said and not what he claims to be or what his organisation he works for claims him to be.

I live in New York City. Guiliani was a Democrat for a long time. He switched so that he could run for mayor against Dinkins, who was a Democrat. New York City is very liberal but Guiliani was a two term mayor here. Colmes was certainly not the only liberal to vote for Guiliani because it would be impossible for Guiliani to become the mayor of New York unless a lot of liberals voted for him.

Our mayor right now, Mike Bloomberg, is a "Republican." Bloomburg was a Democrat until 2001, he switched his party to run for mayor. New York City has term limits (which I think is stupid, I don't mind it for President but I don't think it should apply to mayor of NYC) and Bloomberg didn't want to run in a Democratic primary with many other candidates, so he ran as a Republican because he knew he would win the primary. Bloomberg got Guiliani's endorsement which pretty much won him the election, although it was a very close one. Bloomberg has raised taxes a lot since becoming mayor, and anyone who understands American politics knows that a conservative would never do such a thing.

Just because Colmes voted for Guiliani doesn't mean he is a Conservative. I don't watch FOX News because I do believe it is slanted towards the right, but I wouldn't call Colmes a Conservative. I know a lot of Liberals who approved of what Guiliani did. I would not want Guiliani to be the President, but he was an excellent mayor. I don't like NYC and can't wait to leave, but Guiliani did a lot for the city. This is now one of the safest big cities in the country thanks to his work. I don't agree with what he did on issues like strip clubs, and our schools are awful (but no one could fix that), but Guiliani did many great things for this city. I wish he was still our mayor.

Cant wait to see this movie, its going to be hilarious lafin at BUsh:rockman: (H)

I wish he would put it on the internet with a paypal system, that way he wouldn't have to worry about a distributer.

Originally posted by Parra Power
green is just throwing away your vote...... vote labour, they're alot more left (H)

Labor is just as right wing (even Lui would agree with me on that) as the libs.


A question for a few of our US friends: If September 11th didnt happen would Rudy be seen as a great mayor????

Originally posted by zul-aid
Labor is just as right wing (even Lui would agree with me on that) as the libs.


A question for a few of our US friends: If September 11th didnt happen would Rudy be seen as a great mayor????

Yes, Rudi would have been. Not as great, but still great. He really did alot to clean up New York City and turn it into a city worth visiting again. He will have his critics, but his policies worked like a charm.

Originally posted by zul-aid
Labor is just as right wing (even Lui would agree with me on that) as the libs.


A question for a few of our US friends: If September 11th didnt happen would Rudy be seen as a great mayor????

Yes. He would not have been as well known, but here in New York, he would have still been looked at very highly. He was pretty popular here before 9/11.

Originally posted by zul-aid
A) Democratcs are as much conservatives as Republicans, same here in Australia the to major parties are both right wing - i vote green


When I first came to this forum, i believed myself to be an open-minded liberal who thought people like Moore, Frankin and co. where strong liberal types..... since joining these discussion I have been able to critise people like Moore, whom i looked up to as a hero before SWM and B4C, now i see him for what he truely is and have been able to strengthen my own liberal beliefs and have become an active member of the Greens party - thanks Rhizome, Vagegast and especially you Elder for making it all possible.

I think Democrats and Republicans are just a fraction away from each other. Both want to control your life, just one side wants to do it quicker and in a more obvious way. You vote green, I vote Libertarian in my country.

That's what many of you might find funny from reading my posts. I wouldn't vote for George Bush even if I knew the election was close. But my issues against him are things other than the war.



Oh, and you're welcome. But you came to those conlcusions on your own and should thank yourself. If you can't criticise your own leaders or those who you look up to, then you are just a sheep with no mind of your own.

Congrats. And it's always fun debating, no matter how silly it may get at times.

Originally posted by Elder
I think Democrats and Republicans are just a fraction away from each other. Both want to control your life, just one side wants to do it quicker and in a more obvious way. You vote green, I vote Libertarian in my country.

That's what many of you might find funny from reading my posts. I wouldn't vote for George Bush even if I knew the election was close. But my issues against him are things other than the war.



Oh, and you're welcome. But you came to those conlcusions on your own and should thank yourself. If you can't criticise your own leaders or those who you look up to, then you are just a sheep with no mind of your own.

Congrats. And it's always fun debating, no matter how silly it may get at times.

If I could vote in this election, I would probably vote for Gary Nolan as well. I'm not a fan of Bush or Kerry.

Well it's the #1 movie in America... even beating out "White Chicks." :rolleyes:

Pretty impressive for a documentary though. A 20+ million weekend gross is unthinkable for a documentary.

Saw it just a couple of hours ago with three of my friends. They're all Republicans and were all planning on voting for Bush in the elections, despite admitting they know he's incompetent.

After watching the movie they were not so sure. They're definitely not going to vote for Kerry come election time, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them will NOT vote for Bush and the other two will think twice about doing so.

Incidentally of my 10 closest friends from high school, 9 are Republican and one is Democrat. :O

(Try winning a debate when you're 1 v. 6 sometimes. No matter how convincing your arguments are they will be drowned out in the bullsh*t coming left and right :( )

I hope all 9 will see this movie and realize that Kerry is the lesser of the two evils.

Originally posted by Elder
I think Democrats and Republicans are just a fraction away from each other. Both want to control your life, just one side wants to do it quicker and in a more obvious way. You vote green, I vote Libertarian in my country.

That's what many of you might find funny from reading my posts. I wouldn't vote for George Bush even if I knew the election was close. But my issues against him are things other than the war.



Oh, and you're welcome. But you came to those conlcusions on your own and should thank yourself. If you can't criticise your own leaders or those who you look up to, then you are just a sheep with no mind of your own.

Congrats. And it's always fun debating, no matter how silly it may get at times.

I feel the same way. I voted for myself for Governor of Wisconsin because I hated both candidates. But right now I really think that my principles can be put to the side in this one election. I hate voting for major party candidates, and I don't really like Kerry, but he'll have my vote. He needs to get out and do something though, he's in the public eye about as much as Al Gore right now, you wouldn't think he was running for the President based on how often you see him.

Anyone in the state of Wisconsin needs to vote for Feingold this upcomming election, he's going to need some help and we can't afford to lose the best Senator in America. The ONLY Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

I don't vote, all politics are corrupt.

But I defenitely want to see this movie.

Originally posted by Run DMB
Well it's the #1 movie in America... even beating out "White Chicks." :rolleyes:

Pretty impressive for a documentary though. A 20+ million weekend gross is unthinkable for a documentary.

Saw it just a couple of hours ago with three of my friends. They're all Republicans and were all planning on voting for Bush in the elections, despite admitting they know he's incompetent.

After watching the movie they were not so sure. They're definitely not going to vote for Kerry come election time, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them will NOT vote for Bush and the other two will think twice about doing so.

Incidentally of my 10 closest friends from high school, 9 are Republican and one is Democrat. :O

(Try winning a debate when you're 1 v. 6 sometimes. No matter how convincing your arguments are they will be drowned out in the bullsh*t coming left and right :( )

I hope all 9 will see this movie and realize that Kerry is the lesser of the two evils.

Not untill somebody makes a movie about Kerry (won't happen) and changes your mind.

Its all propaganda.

Letting this documentary change your mind about voting for somebody is pretty sad. Who the hell is Michael Moore to make you do something like that? Get the facts, not watch some documentary made by an extreme left wing, Bush- hating director.

Originally posted by Parra Power
green is just throwing away your vote...... vote labour, they're alot more left (H)
I am a member of the Labor Party and some of these 'popular policies' Carmen Lawrence has force Latham so say i opposed. It isn't Latham it is that damn hippy Carmen she should be tried being tied up to WA INC.

Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
Not untill somebody makes a movie about Kerry (won't happen) and changes your mind.

Its all propaganda.

Letting this documentary change your mind about voting for somebody is pretty sad. Who the hell is Michael Moore to make you do something like that? Get the facts, not watch some documentary made by an extreme left wing, Bush- hating director.

well the world is spoon fed "facts" from bush's extreme right in the media every day........... shouldn't the "extreme left" get a voice too then?:confused:

Originally posted by Parra Power
well the world is spoon fed "facts" from bush's extreme right in the media every day........... shouldn't the "extreme left" get a voice too then?:confused:

There is nothing "extreme" right about Bush... Maybe we should just pay attention to facts instead of so called "extremes."

Moore is a liar.

Why is Moore a liar ?

(I'm not defending him or anything, I'm just curious to know, so when I see the movie I also have another perspective)

Originally posted by Parra Power
well the world is spoon fed "facts" from bush's extreme right in the media every day........... shouldn't the "extreme left" get a voice too then?:confused:

Hollywood is left. Thats a pretty big influence.

I wouldnt call CNN "extreme right" either.

This movie is designed to create debate. I saw it and liked it. Not many people I know want to debate the issues with me though.

**** Kerry, **** Bush, **** Moore. :mrpimp:

I dont give a **** about politics whatsoever, but I still wanna see this movie :mrpimp:

Originally posted by -William-
Why is Moore a liar ?

(I'm not defending him or anything, I'm just curious to know, so when I see the movie I also have another perspective)

You know,I am beginning to think he is less of a "liar" than he is more of a manipulator of facts.

Case in point. He was promoting his movie this morning and had the quote "we sold out theaters at Fort Bragg!" Fort Bragg is a military training center. While it is true that the theater sold out for the movie, what he failed to mention was that the theater only holds 40 people...........................


He selectively leaves out key facts in his movies, and does quite the editing job on the final cut. There is a scene in Bowling for Columbine where he is trying to show the NRA and Charlton Heston as evil bastards because they went to some town where this kid was shot and held a gun ralley. Then he showed footage from this ralley... then a quick shot of Heston saying something that would offend the town and prents of this child was shown... There was one huge problem. Heston never said that quote in that town, and the clip that was used had him wearing totally different clothes.


That's just one example. He has an agenda, and wants to line his pockets with the money of younger fans who are impressionable.

Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
Letting this documentary change your mind about voting for somebody is pretty sad. Who the hell is Michael Moore to make you do something like that? Get the facts, not watch some documentary made by an extreme left wing, Bush- hating director.
The problem is that 95% of Americans don't have the time to look into the issues, do their own research and form their own opinions. They're either going to get their facts from the mouths of those governing them or Fox News or they're going to get them from people like Moore. I don't trust Moore but I trust him more than I trust Bush, if simply because Moore doesn't have as much to gain from lying as Bush does.

I probably wouldn't vote for Kerry even if I became a US citizen in time. I voted for Edwards at the Democratic caucus I attended.

Originally posted by Run DMB
I don't trust Moore but I trust him more than I trust Bush, if simply because Moore doesn't have as much to gain from lying as Bush does.

Moore gets PAID well for this crap and became famous. Bush is already rich and has all the power in the world... don't get your point.

Originally posted by Elder
Moore gets PAID well for this crap and became famous. Bush is already rich and has all the power in the world... don't get your point.
I don't think Moore is in it for the money. If he is, then he's one of the biggest frauds and hypocrites that ever lived. But I don't think that's his primary goal. He just wants his opinion to be heard. And he wants Bush out of office.

Originally posted by Run DMB
I don't think Moore is in it for the money. If he is, then he's one of the biggest frauds and hypocrites that ever lived. But I don't think that's his primary goal. He just wants his opinion to be heard. And he wants Bush out of office.

I'll agree that he wants Bush out of office and his opinion heard. I think he has changed though. Watch him at big events, and how he loves all the attention he gets. When he made the movie Roger and Me, he was a nobody. That was actually kind of a funny film, but then he dropped out of the spotlight for awhile. Now he is writing books, making movies, going on every media outlet he can to promote his stuff... money is a driving issue, it has to be. But you are right, getting Bush might be ab igger one at this point.

Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
Not untill somebody makes a movie about Kerry (won't happen) and changes your mind.

Its all propaganda.
We don't need a movie about John Kerry. Fox News is pro-Bush propaganda, and it's on 24/7.
Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
Get the facts.
And where exactly do you get the facts anyway? Where is this completely unbiased source that you can get the absolute truth from? It does not exists.

Originally posted by Elder
I'll agree that he wants Bush out of office and his opinion heard. I think he has changed though. Watch him at big events, and how he loves all the attention he gets. When he made the movie Roger and Me, he was a nobody. That was actually kind of a funny film, but then he dropped out of the spotlight for awhile. Now he is writing books, making movies, going on every media outlet he can to promote his stuff... money is a driving issue, it has to be. But you are right, getting Bush might be ab igger one at this point.
Maybe you're right. Outside of his movies, I've only seen Moore a couple of times. He seemed like he was passionate about what he was talking about. At the same time he's a bit of an attention whore. He likes to draw attention to himself almost as much as he likes to draw attention to gun control issues, etc. But I thought in Fahrenheit 9/11 he was much more subdued. He only appears on the screen two or three times in the entire movie. He's not trying to be the center of attention like in some of his earlier films.

Originally posted by Run DMB
Maybe you're right. Outside of his movies, I've only seen Moore a couple of times. He seemed like he was passionate about what he was talking about. At the same time he's a bit of an attention whore. He likes to draw attention to himself almost as much as he likes to draw attention to gun control issues, etc. But I thought in Fahrenheit 9/11 he was much more subdued. He only appears on the screen two or three times in the entire movie. He's not trying to be the center of attention like in some of his earlier films.

I think I will still go see it, but wait until it's at the dollar theater. I like to see what the opposition has to say. I actually think he can be kind of funny sometimes, but it will be nice not to see him much in this film.

I think his problem now has become that he is like this little soundbyte machine. "Bush and Oil" comes to mind... it's just a cheap way to argue.

Oh well, I'll check it out.

PS. CNN is on 24 hours too... for about 20 years longer than Fox has been around. CNN is very liberal, and I just saw the study that proved that Fox and another channel were actually center, not right compared to all others. I need to find that study now...

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tCEKSNVW-OYJ:mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc+%22We+included+both+types+of+article s+when+collecting+data+for+the+Drudge+Report%3F&hl=en




There it is... the study done by STANFORD U. Hardly the bastion of conservatism. Check it out though, it's an very itneresting read.



"Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center?


We now compute the difference of a media outlet’s score from 39.0 to judge how centrist it is. Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.


Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the “mainstream” press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0).


Another interesting fact concerns the following claim: “Although the New York Times and other media are liberal, they are balanced by conservative media outlets such as Fox News. Consequently, if one spent an equal amount of time watching Fox News and reading the New York Times, he or she would receive a fairly balanced view of the news.” However, Table 8 shows that this is not quite true. Since the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News’ Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. (Further as we shall see in Table 9, when one uses citations as the level of observation, one would need to spend an even greater amount of time watching Special Report to gain a balanced perspective.) "

Check out the table near the bottom too.. the one about the media and which quotes they use most from which side of the political spectrum.

It's actually quite amazing how lopsided it is.

Am I wrong or is Fox News Special Report only like an hour program each day? Don't O'Reilly and Cavuto's shows factor in?

News Papers are liberal, talk shows are conservative; just know that going in.

I just got back from the movie and I have to say that it's ok and Moore is very good at what he does. He has a mother of one of the soldiers who died in Iraq crying into the camera for pretty much 10 minutes.

But, he does make some good connections and present some things that haven't been given a voice. He does a tremendous job of showing the extent of the "Old Boys Club" so to speak, that dominates the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. It is almost sickening at times. Facts like the appointed leaders of Afghanistan were consultants to oil companies that Bush worked for when the pipeline was researched. What do you know, shortly after they were appointed the pipeline arrangements were made. Just stuff like that, those connections were presented well.

Another thing I had never even thought of regarding the Bin Laden's being given flights out of the country is that they should have been QUESTIONED regarding Osama! Yes there were safety risks, but if your brother is implicated in the most diabolical attack in american history, I think everyone would be expected to be questioned. About his past, where he could possibly be at this time, etc. And apparantly Osama wasn't as detatched from his family as I previously believed.

EDIT: By far the best quote of the movie is George Bush at a fundraiser and he says "Quite a group we have here, the have's and the have more's. A lot of people like to call you guys the elite, I call you my base"

A lot of people in the theater wanted to kick George's ass after that.

I just saw the movie. I swear I heard so many people being pissed off at Bush. The movie didn't have anything new that I didn't know except for the footage.

Funny how Moore played "Cocaine" when he was talkning about the National Guard stuff... :p

Originally posted by Run DMB
We don't need a movie about John Kerry. Fox News is pro-Bush propaganda, and it's on 24/7.

haha (H)(Y)

I am going to see this on thursday. I'll post what I think then

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Am I wrong or is Fox News Special Report only like an hour program each day? Don't O'Reilly and Cavuto's shows factor in?

News Papers are liberal, talk shows are conservative; just know that going in.

I just got back from the movie and I have to say that it's ok and Moore is very good at what he does. He has a mother of one of the soldiers who died in Iraq crying into the camera for pretty much 10 minutes.


Another thing I had never even thought of regarding the Bin Laden's being given flights out of the country is that they should have been QUESTIONED regarding Osama! Yes there were safety risks, but if your brother is implicated in the most diabolical attack in american history, I think everyone would be expected to be questioned. About his past, where he could possibly be at this time, etc. And apparantly Osama wasn't as detatched from his family as I previously believed.

EDIT: By far the best quote of the movie is George Bush at a fundraiser and he says "Quite a group we have here, the have's and the have more's. A lot of people like to call you guys the elite, I call you my base"

A lot of people in the theater wanted to kick George's ass after that.

Yes, Special Report is just one hour. I think it's the most unbiased reporting on any news channel or show. They are consistently fair and give both sides a voice. Either way, the study was basically about newspapers, the Drudgereport, and one hour weekly news shows.

I am sure Bin Ladens family was questioned. The other thing that needs to be pointed out however, is that Bin Ladens family disowned him and kicked him out of the Saudi Kingdom.

And I bet those people who wanted to kick some ass already wanted to kick his ass anyway.

Originally posted by Vagegast
Funny how Moore played "Cocaine" when he was talkning about the National Guard stuff... :p
That was brilliant. (Y)

Only a couple of guys in the theater got it though. (:/)





btw: John Ashcroft's singing = :funny: + :nape:

Originally posted by Elder
I think I will still go see it, but wait until it's at the dollar theater. I like to see what the opposition has to say. I actually think he can be kind of funny sometimes, but it will be nice not to see him much in this film.

I think his problem now has become that he is like this little soundbyte machine. "Bush and Oil" comes to mind... it's just a cheap way to argue.

Oh well, I'll check it out.

PS. CNN is on 24 hours too... for about 20 years longer than Fox has been around. CNN is very liberal, and I just saw the study that proved that Fox and another channel were actually center, not right compared to all others. I need to find that study now...

I read somewhere a few weeks ago that around 65% of FOX News viewers were going to vote for Bush and around the same percentage of CNN viewers were going to vote for Kerry. MSNBC viewers were equally divided between Bush and Kerry.

Originally posted by USA Supporter
I read somewhere a few weeks ago that around 65% of FOX News viewers were going to vote for Bush and around the same percentage of CNN viewers were going to vote for Kerry. MSNBC viewers were equally divided between Bush and Kerry.

I think 6 people watch MSNBC. ;)

But I wouldn't be surprised about those stats. People go where they feel is "home." Liberals push CNN, Conservatives push Fox.

Funny thing. CNN lost audio a couple of days ago for about an hour... an even amount of people watched CNN and MSNBC.

(H)

Originally posted by Elder
There is nothing "extreme" right about Bush... Maybe we should just pay attention to facts instead of so called "extremes."

Moore is a liar.

and bush is not :rolleyes:


isnt it better to have a film director as a liar than the president of your country? :rolleyes:

When was the last American President who didn't lie, or 'stretch' the truth? :confused:

no................ don't say that.......... you'll just get elder coming here and going on about how bush, and all other presidents for that matter, have all been perfect angels who have never done anything wrong :(

no Bush is the greatest president the states have EVER had! :rofl:

Originally posted by rhizome17
When was the last American President who didn't lie, or 'stretch' the truth? :confused:

Why don't add ALL politicians from around the world to that list? I forgot, the only country you find any problems with is the US.

Originally posted by Parra Power
no................ don't say that.......... you'll just get elder coming here and going on about how bush, and all other presidents for that matter, have all been perfect angels who have never done anything wrong :(

He's an angel who will die and go to heaven. ;)

Did people clap at the end of the movie? They did when I watched it. :D

And u gotta love Bush butchering that saying at the end: "You can fool me once..." :rofl:

Originally posted by #1 Stunna
Did people clap at the end of the movie? They did when I watched it. :D

And u gotta love Bush butchering that saying at the end: "You can fool me once..." :rofl:
There's an old saying in Arizona - I know it's in Minnesota, probably in Arizona - that says: fool me once...

...

:confused:

...

shame on... shame on you...

...

:confused:

...

...fool me - you can't get fooled again.

:rofl:



btw: nobody clapped in the theater I was in... but I live in a very conservative community

Originally posted by Run DMB
... but I live in a very conservative community

The theater I went to was nearly packed... with 85% old white people. It took us a while to get out cuz they were going down the stairs really slow. :p

Originally posted by Run DMB
There's an old saying in Arizona - I know it's in Minnesota, probably in Arizona - that says: fool me once...

...

:confused:

...

shame on... shame on you...

...

:confused:

...

...fool me - you can't get fooled again.

:rofl:



btw: nobody clapped in the theater I was in... but I live in a very conservative community Cunninlynguists (Y)

Originally posted by Elder
Why don't add ALL politicians from around the world to that list? I forgot, the only country you find any problems with is the US.

3 reasons.

Firstly, where I live, the political system is not as corrupt as other places. There are several politicians who can be accused of that, but most of them are actually pretty honest. Every measure of corruption has us near the bottom or on the bottom. Benefit of living in a small country. So to say what you are saying would be a lie.

Secondly, I was replying specifically to Parras comment. Read it again.

Finally, in case you have forgotten, the topic of this thread is Michael Moore's film Farenheit 911. Which country is the central topic of the film? Which character features most prominently?

Ah, right. Try again.

Anyway, I find it highly amusing that as a 'libertarian' you name Moore as 'the enemy'. Considering that with the Patriot Act, you have an administration that is orchestrating one of the biggest attacks on libertarian values in American history. And given they are actually in power, they have alot more influence over your daily life than Moore ever can.

Yes, a good laugh resounded around the house.

Originally posted by rhizome17


Ah, right. Try again.

Anyway, I find it highly amusing that as a 'libertarian' you name Moore as 'the enemy'. Considering that with the Patriot Act, you have an administration that is orchestrating one of the biggest attacks on libertarian values in American history. And given they are actually in power, they have alot more influence over your daily life than Moore ever can.

Yes, a good laugh resounded around the house.

I don't know where I ever said I supported the Patriot Act. And I also haven't heard of one person who had their rights violated because of it.

Ah right, try again.



;)

http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03/m04/i01/s01

Originally posted by Vagegast
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03/m04/i01/s01

The point? Interesting article, but I don't see any rights being violated.

free Austin Sherman!

http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=wire/-----74814smallsherm.gifIMG.article (http://)

:rockman:

File it under Patriot Act abuse...

Originally posted by Vagegast
File it under Patriot Act abuse...

File it under, "can't see the link."

And it's from "Raise the Fist".... sounds so like a crappy hardcore band. If we all just raised our fist the world would be a better place. :D

Originally posted by Elder
File it under, "can't see the link."

And it's from "Raise the Fist".... sounds so like a crappy hardcore band. If we all just raised our fist the world would be a better place. :D

oh the site got taken out due to various legal reasons...

heres what i found that replaces that site:

http://www.freesherman.org/

:D

Originally posted by Moron
oh the site got taken out due to various legal reasons...

heres what i found that replaces that site:

http://www.freesherman.org/

:D

Okay, after reading some other sites regarding this cat as well, I still don't see the problem. He had a website... basically an anti government website... he posted some link with how to make bombs right?

As far as I know, it's illegal to overthrow the government by violent means. Obviously he is just an 18 year old punk, much in the same vein as Moron here, who probably doesn't mean any harm. But that brings me to the point... if you are not guilty, why go for the plea deal and stay a year in jail? If he truly wan't guilty of breaking any laws, he should have fought it. Too bad for him, I don't feel bad.

Oh, and I found this quote.

"Austin took the plea agreement because of the 20 years he faced under terrorist-enhancement laws enacted long before the PATRIOT Act."

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/38/open-mikulan.php


This isn't a Patriot Act case.

Yep. World Stinks.

You can't feel sorry for anyone who accepts the plea agreement, that's their fault.

For whatever reason I can't remember his name, but the guy who is being held on a ship off some port on the east coast somewhere who has yet to be charged for his crime. The Supreme Court also just ruled that the "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to lawyers and will have to be charged if they are held. I'm not positive this is "Patriot Act" stuff, but it is definitely in the power of the Chief Executive and his holding of the people at Guantanamo is rediculous.

I saw it. I didn't care for it. I hate Michael Moore.

I don't care to get into it because let's face it. Dodgeball is 20 times the movie that anything Michael Moore will ever do. Dodgeball will be the best movie released this year. Vince Vaughn is the coolest guy alive and Michael Moore is nothing but a fat walking hypocrite.

Case in point. He claimed to have pictures of the Iraqi prisoner abuse before they were released in the media. If that was true shouldn't he have shown them when he got them. All Michael Moore cares about is his checkbook and he knows that the liberals in this country are willing to support anything that has the slightest hint of their cause. Most of the left side of this country cares about is making the right look bad even if they are lying or have incorrect facts. Michael Moore does that and they support it.

Don't believe me. Well why are republicans in power at the moment? Because Joe and Jane Genric living in middle America see these people going out of their way to make the right look bad and theyalways hear the right talking about issues and not just reverting to insults. When the Democrats stop supporting crap like this and actually talk about the issues then maybe they would have a chance. Well then again only one party would complain about tax cuts but be more than happy to keep the tax relief checks they got.

Originally posted by pennington10
I saw it. I didn't care for it. I hate Michael Moore.

I don't care to get into it because let's face it. Dodgeball is 20 times the movie that anything Michael Moore will ever do. Dodgeball will be the best movie released this year. Vince Vaughn is the coolest guy alive and Michael Moore is nothing but a fat walking hypocrite.

Case in point. He claimed to have pictures of the Iraqi prisoner abuse before they were released in the media. If that was true shouldn't he have shown them when he got them. All Michael Moore cares about is his checkbook and he knows that the liberals in this country are willing to support anything that has the slightest hint of their cause. Most of the left side of this country cares about is making the right look bad even if they are lying or have incorrect facts. Michael Moore does that and they support it.

Don't believe me. Well why are republicans in power at the moment? Because Joe and Jane Genric living in middle America see these people going out of their way to make the right look bad and theyalways hear the right talking about issues and not just reverting to insults. When the Democrats stop supporting crap like this and actually talk about the issues then maybe they would have a chance. Well then again only one party would complain about tax cuts but be more than happy to keep the tax relief checks they got.

You know, I once new a man from Nantucket.

Originally posted by JTNY
You know, I once new a man from Nantucket.

Go on...

Originally posted by pennington10
I saw it. I didn't care for it. I hate Michael Moore.

I don't care to get into it because let's face it. Dodgeball is 20 times the movie that anything Michael Moore will ever do. Dodgeball will be the best movie released this year. Vince Vaughn is the coolest guy alive and Michael Moore is nothing but a fat walking hypocrite.

Case in point. He claimed to have pictures of the Iraqi prisoner abuse before they were released in the media. If that was true shouldn't he have shown them when he got them. All Michael Moore cares about is his checkbook and he knows that the liberals in this country are willing to support anything that has the slightest hint of their cause. Most of the left side of this country cares about is making the right look bad even if they are lying or have incorrect facts. Michael Moore does that and they support it.

Don't believe me. Well why are republicans in power at the moment? Because Joe and Jane Genric living in middle America see these people going out of their way to make the right look bad and theyalways hear the right talking about issues and not just reverting to insults. When the Democrats stop supporting crap like this and actually talk about the issues then maybe they would have a chance. Well then again only one party would complain about tax cuts but be more than happy to keep the tax relief checks they got.

The right is the exact same way. When Clinton was in office it was the reverse.

Originally posted by pennington10
I saw it. I didn't care for it. Neither does Michael Moore. You paid for the ticket. That's all he cares about.

Agreed but it was done to a lesse extent. I mean republicans never have to plea with people about crossing the line. I don't remember people carrying a bunch of **** Clinton signs disrupting traffic and what not. Having these militant anti-bush/anti war douche bags running around calling everyone a war monger it shameful. Or these people who start spewing off out the mouth with no facts just saying No Blood for Oil rubbish.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
The right is the exact same way. When Clinton was in office it was the reverse.

Clinton had alot of baggage to run with... but you are right, the Conservatives went after him pretty hard. Then chickened out in the end when they could have gotten rid of him.

The republican politicians in this country are so weak and have no spine... Except Cheney who actually has the balls to say "**** you" to a politician who is trying ot be friendly to him after saying the typical "Cheney worked for Halliburton" garbagein the press all day.

Most of the people who protest Bush are idiots. And I agree, we need to get over this whole Cheney saying "****" thing. It is nothing. But we also have to get over things like Janet Jackson. I hate that you have Democrats who attack Cheney for saying "****", but defend Janet Jackson, and I hate Republicans who say we need to get over what Cheney said, but condemn Janet Jackson. The world is partizan, neither party looks out for what is best, they attack the other side. It's sad really.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Most of the people who protest Bush are idiots. And I agree, we need to get over this whole Cheney saying "****" thing. It is nothing. But we also have to get over things like Janet Jackson. I hate that you have Democrats who attack Cheney for saying "****", but defend Janet Jackson, and I hate Republicans who say we need to get over what Cheney said, but condemn Janet Jackson. The world is partizan, neither party looks out for what is best, they attack the other side. It's sad really.


And Elder calls me the clown :rolleyes:


nah im just the ringleader :crazyboy: (H)

Originally posted by Elder
Clinton had alot of baggage to run with... but you are right, the Conservatives went after him pretty hard. Then chickened out in the end when they could have gotten rid of him.

We didn't want to get rid off him. The whole plan was to make him look as bad as possible so we would win the election in 2000. Clinton would just be hung out to dry in office and by the time Gore started to campaign people started to associate him with Clinton. It was one of the greatest politcal moves of all time. Gore kept trying to postion himself away from Clinton because no one wanted anything to do with him at the time. They knew alot of the swing votes who don't read up about the issues and only knew Gore because he had been Clinton's VP would vote for the other canidate whomever it was.

why do people go crazy when someone says "****" anyway? it's my favorite word, so many uses.

we need a 3rd party here, and i mean a strong one.

Originally posted by Bobby


we need a 3rd party here, and i mean a strong one.

:rockman: :rockman: :rockman:

The bobby convo:

:D

Unfortunately you have no experience in the stuff. I personally think I would make a better candidate than anyone here, but once again, no experience.

The war on drugs would end, it's racist. Did you know that the minimum amount for a felony crack posession is like 1/100th of the minimum amount for a felony powder cocaine posession. Crack being cheaper, the poorer people get felony drug convictions more than the rich. And I think we all can agree that crack, while it affects everyone, affects the black community more than any other community. The War on Drugs is racist.

I would raise taxes and fix Social Security (we have one of the lowest income tax rates in the Western World quit bitching), make healthcare universal (it's CHEAPER than the current system), and make College free for all citizens. I would begin outsourcing Manufacturing jobs at the rate that americans start going to college more so as to not make a large group of people unemployed at one time. I would make one affirmative action system mandatory to all institutions until I feel that the disparity between groups has been removed (affirmative action was created by an executive order, yes i can do it). I would pull out of Iraq, I would pull out of Afghanistan, I would pull out of Germany (not Korea though). I would reduce the number of career military positions and expand the role of reservists. I would not try to repeal the Selective Service act, but I would try to amend it so that it would take a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to reinstate the draft. I would get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, it is pointless, that is what the FBI, CIA, and Department of the Interior are for.

There are a lot of changes I would make, but unfortunately all of these puppets of special interests get elected every time and not one of these changes may be made in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Unfortunately you have no experience in the stuff. I personally think I would make a better candidate than anyone here, but once again, no experience.

The war on drugs would end, it's racist. Did you know that the minimum amount for a felony crack posession is like 1/100th of the minimum amount for a felony powder cocaine posession. Crack being cheaper, the poorer people get felony drug convictions more than the rich. And I think we all can agree that crack, while it affects everyone, affects the black community more than any other community. The War on Drugs is racist.

I would raise taxes and fix Social Security (we have one of the lowest income tax rates in the Western World quit bitching), make healthcare universal (it's CHEAPER than the current system), and make College free for all citizens. I would begin outsourcing Manufacturing jobs at the rate that americans start going to college more so as to not make a large group of people unemployed at one time. I would make one affirmative action system mandatory to all institutions until I feel that the disparity between groups has been removed (affirmative action was created by an executive order, yes i can do it). I would pull out of Iraq, I would pull out of Afghanistan, I would pull out of Germany (not Korea though). I would reduce the number of career military positions and expand the role of reservists. I would not try to repeal the Selective Service act, but I would try to amend it so that it would take a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to reinstate the draft. I would get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, it is pointless, that is what the FBI, CIA, and Department of the Interior are for.

There are a lot of changes I would make, but unfortunately all of these puppets of special interests get elected every time and not one of these changes may be made in my lifetime.

Start campaigning now. Gotta be able to do a better job than Kerry anyway. There is 50% of the american public who can't be arsed voting anymore - nab that 50 and you are in.

Originally posted by Elder
As far as I know, it's illegal to overthrow the government by violent means.

you weren't saying that BEFORE iraq were you :confused:

Originally posted by Parra Power
you weren't saying that BEFORE iraq were you :confused:

Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Oh wait, you are trying to relate the United States overthrowing a dictatorship by violent means to the overthrow of the US government by violent means.

Well, I am sure it was illegal for Iraqi's to plot to overthrow their government by violent means... ;)

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Unfortunately you have no experience in the stuff. I personally think I would make a better candidate than anyone here, but once again, no experience.

The war on drugs would end, it's racist. Did you know that the minimum amount for a felony crack posession is like 1/100th of the minimum amount for a felony powder cocaine posession. Crack being cheaper, the poorer people get felony drug convictions more than the rich. And I think we all can agree that crack, while it affects everyone, affects the black community more than any other community. The War on Drugs is racist.

I would raise taxes and fix Social Security (we have one of the lowest income tax rates in the Western World quit bitching), make healthcare universal (it's CHEAPER than the current system), and make College free for all citizens. I would begin outsourcing Manufacturing jobs at the rate that americans start going to college more so as to not make a large group of people unemployed at one time. I would make one affirmative action system mandatory to all institutions until I feel that the disparity between groups has been removed (affirmative action was created by an executive order, yes i can do it). I would pull out of Iraq, I would pull out of Afghanistan, I would pull out of Germany (not Korea though). I would reduce the number of career military positions and expand the role of reservists. I would not try to repeal the Selective Service act, but I would try to amend it so that it would take a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to reinstate the draft. I would get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, it is pointless, that is what the FBI, CIA, and Department of the Interior are for.

There are a lot of changes I would make, but unfortunately all of these puppets of special interests get elected every time and not one of these changes may be made in my lifetime.


You would get.... more votes than I would like to admit. But your ideas aren't that new or original. If any program is "Racist" it's Social Security... Black men don't usually live long enough to get their benefits. And who gets them after they die? Old white ladies who live to 90.

College shouldn't be free... you should have to work to earn your education. That way you work harder during school. Government scholarships are okay though. Taxes are fine where they are. I don't care what tax rates the rest of the western world has... their economies are ****e compared to the US because of it... partly anyway. Pensions, health care, and too many regulations are the other reasons. I agree with you on ending the war on drugs.


I would pull out of Germany, AND South Korea. We don't need to be protecting South Korea anymore, and we did too much for Germany already.

I saw it. I came late, and it was hard to find a seat, so many peoples:rockman:
It was amazing, he really created fantastic documentay!!!


Originally posted by #1 Stunna
Did people clap at the end of the movie? They did when I watched it. :D

And u gotta love Bush butchering that saying at the end: "You can fool me once..." :rofl:

They did! Not just at the end, but many times through out the movie!!!

Now I know why people in Europe just love this movie:D

Originally posted by Elder
Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Oh wait, you are trying to relate the United States overthrowing a dictatorship by violent means to the overthrow of the US government by violent means.

Well, I am sure it was illegal for Iraqi's to plot to overthrow their government by violent means... ;)


you said it was illegal to overthrow government by violent means


i dont see why american government should be any different to anyone elses? :confused:

Originally posted by Elder
You would get.... more votes than I would like to admit. But your ideas aren't that new or original. If any program is "Racist" it's Social Security... Black men don't usually live long enough to get their benefits. And who gets them after they die? Old white ladies who live to 90.

College shouldn't be free... you should have to work to earn your education. That way you work harder during school. Government scholarships are okay though. Taxes are fine where they are. I don't care what tax rates the rest of the western world has... their economies are ****e compared to the US because of it... partly anyway. Pensions, health care, and too many regulations are the other reasons. I agree with you on ending the war on drugs.


I would pull out of Germany, AND South Korea. We don't need to be protecting South Korea anymore, and we did too much for Germany already.

I didn't think about it, but I suppose there are elements of social security that benefit the whites more than the blacks. Interesting.

I would like to withdraw from everywhere, but I just don't know about Korea. The North Koreans are the biggest threat to the United States, they have nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them against us. I don't think we should give up the DMZ.

I know the ideas aren't new or original, but they haven't ever been on a major platform or combined under one candidate.

The only problem would be that I don't really like the idea of political parties, so the publicity of this candidate would be zilch.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
I didn't think about it, but I suppose there are elements of social security that benefit the whites more than the blacks. Interesting.

I would like to withdraw from everywhere, but I just don't know about Korea. The North Koreans are the biggest threat to the United States, they have nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them against us. I don't think we should give up the DMZ.

I know the ideas aren't new or original, but they haven't ever been on a major platform or combined under one candidate.

The only problem would be that I don't really like the idea of political parties, so the publicity of this candidate would be zilch.

Social Security is a scam. Do me a favor. Look up the town of Galveston, Texas, and what they did when they were able to opt out of social security many years ago. They put the money into the stock market instead and made tons of money... When the government found out how well it worked, they stopped the program of "opting out." The problem I have with SS is that when you die, all that money you dumped in just disapears... I would rather keep all that money and invest it on my own and keep it in my family. When the government controls so much of your money, they have power over you... not good.

You might be right about North Korea. I am just tired of the whining from that side of the world... But we really don't need to be stationed everywhere "protecting" people.

Alot of those ideas you listed John Kerry supports. He might not say them publicly, but he is right there with you.

Originally posted by Nimreitz



make healthcare universal (it's CHEAPER than the current system), and make College free for all citizens. I

I agree with you.

In any Western Capitalist country, what IS the motivation for educating the populace? A wide ranging and unbiased curriculum would surely lead to more people developing the thoughts you have Nimreitz. Only by restricting "the best" education to the rich can those holding power be assured of keeping it! :rolleyes:



One thing about the American school systems is the way college is treated. In most European countries, and even Cuba from what I hear, college education is free and constitutionally gauranteed. Depending on how long you go (2-4 years) and where you go (public or private) young people who graduate from college in America are usually $45,000 to $150,000 dollars in debt when they recieve their diplomas. Unless they are rich, it basically gaurantees that they must find a company somewhere, get a job, and pay off their debts; it really smacks of forced labor to me. This fact forces many young adults to skip college altogether, or joing the military to pay it off, and you all know what the US military does.... :rolleyes: (yea and U.S army called me not long ago and i said to them: TO **** OFF (H) )

Which leads me to ask; if America is "the greatest country in the world" as well as the richest country in the world, then why cannot American afford universal education when much poorer countries can?

And secondary, or high school as its called is an even bigger joke.:| Although they are supposed to be public, in most cases big corporations like Mcdonalds or Coca-Cola have big stakes and investments in schools, turning them from education centers to advertisement centers. uh-oh capitalsim :rolleyes:

In the capitalist world we live in, it must be assumed that one will earn significantly more after completing a university course than they would have otherwise. In other words, it assumes that one will get a "good job", after finishing a university education.

As you know, a "good job", in this sense, is merely one with a high salary :rolleyes:. In making the assumption that university students will get such a job, the advocates of tuition fees acknowledge (or perhaps encourage) the idea that the goal of education should be to eventually earn more money. !:|

I take issue with this. I feel that education should not necessarily be a "stepping stone" to success. Moreover, I feel that the fact that it is so encourages many to see education as a "necessary evil", in the eventual pursuit of greater riches. This, I feel, results in a lack of interest for subjects studied and ultimately, a lack of development in such intellectual disciplines. :rolleyes:

When the day comes when I have children, I hope I can raise them outside of the US, so they can recieve better education, and a better sense of morality and society. (H)

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Unfortunately you have no experience in the stuff. I personally think I would make a better candidate than anyone here, but once again, no experience.

The war on drugs would end, it's racist. Did you know that the minimum amount for a felony crack posession is like 1/100th of the minimum amount for a felony powder cocaine posession. Crack being cheaper, the poorer people get felony drug convictions more than the rich. And I think we all can agree that crack, while it affects everyone, affects the black community more than any other community. The War on Drugs is racist.

I would raise taxes and fix Social Security (we have one of the lowest income tax rates in the Western World quit bitching), make healthcare universal (it's CHEAPER than the current system), and make College free for all citizens. I would begin outsourcing Manufacturing jobs at the rate that americans start going to college more so as to not make a large group of people unemployed at one time. I would make one affirmative action system mandatory to all institutions until I feel that the disparity between groups has been removed (affirmative action was created by an executive order, yes i can do it). I would pull out of Iraq, I would pull out of Afghanistan, I would pull out of Germany (not Korea though). I would reduce the number of career military positions and expand the role of reservists. I would not try to repeal the Selective Service act, but I would try to amend it so that it would take a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to reinstate the draft. I would get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, it is pointless, that is what the FBI, CIA, and Department of the Interior are for.

There are a lot of changes I would make, but unfortunately all of these puppets of special interests get elected every time and not one of these changes may be made in my lifetime.


I disagree with a lot of that. First off the war on drugs shouldn't be ended it just needs to be speed up to affect people in the 21st century. What I would do is just make having possession or under the influence of a a narcotic a misdemeanor fine. As long as you are not selling drugs to minors the first three offenses would be a rising fine scale. First offense 100 dollars, second offense 500 dollars and third offense 1000 dollars. After that then jail time would be brought into the mix depending on the drug and circumstances. Pretty much what that implies is that if you are going to do drugs keep it in your house and don't bring that stuff out in public. Also it is dumb to put them in jail. If you take away peoples money than that is the less they have to spend on drugs. If you want to do drugs fine but don't do it around town do it in your house and don't endanger children.

The thing is the legalizing drugs would never ever happen because you wouldn't make any money from taxing it. It would be impossible to tax weed which is the most used drug in America. Marijuana will never be like tobacco because you don't have to manufacture it to make a product. All you have to do is grow it and your set. You would need to have licensed street dealers and growers and the money it would take in implement all that and upkeep the program would cost as much as the drug war. With my policy you don't go out looking for it but if you see it then you fine them. It will also reduce the number of people in prison and police resistance. If people know they won't go to jail for having drugs then they will be less likely to run from the police when stopped. It is something that people will have to accepted. If you want to do drugs fine but there is a price to pay when you break the rules of doing it.

Education needs to be fixed but it isn't with throwing more money at schools. It is by giving the parents tax breaks by their children getting good grades. Remember this was system used by their parents to motivate them to get good grades. Your parent would give you money when you got good grades. The problem seems to be now parents don't want to help their kids. So what needs to be done is for every A your kid gets a semester you get a 25 tax credit. Say your kid as six classes a semester that is 300 dollars a year if you kid were to get straight A's the entire year. What that does is encourage parents to work with their kids so they get tax relief. It indirectly will improve the kid-parent relationship in a lot homes as well because now parents will have a reason to spend time with their kids even if it is only for 20 or 30 minutes a night. Something has to be done to get parents in this country to become better and at least that is a start. It my seem sad that you have offer money to get parents to spend time with their kids and get involved with their schoolwork but it is basically the same system they grew up under. You have to offer rewards for people today to do anything. That is the key.

As far as Social Security goes it needs to be changed but it should be under a system of you get what you put into it. Your money shouldn't be going to someone else. I would almost set it up in a 401k type of program. You should chose how much you want to put into it and when your turn 65 you then get in to do what you please. It is dumb to have my money going to other people. You are punishing the people who work harder and rewarding the people who are lazy or throw their money away like the current system promotes.

Also the NASA budget needs to be cut dramatically. I would slash NASA's budget in half and then take that money to set up a program to study and solve the problem with the holes in the Ozone. Something is going to have to be done about it and the answer isn't on the moon or on Mars or on some space station floating around Earth. If NASA wants to keep spending then they need to earn their own money. It does no good to explore space if in a hundred years we will be dead.

We need to be able to dig in Alaska as well. Everyone bitches about how we are too dependent on the Middle East for oil but they refuse to let us drill in Alaska. First that area is inhospitable for the most part. I don't see the what is so bad about moving some moose and bears in order to become more self sufficient for our oil. It would create a lot of jobs as well.

Those are just some of my thoughts on what I would do.

Originally posted by pennington10
I disagree with a lot of that. First off the war on drugs shouldn't be ended it just needs to be speed up to affect people in the 21st century. What I would do is just make having possession or under the influence of a a narcotic a misdemeanor fine. As long as you are not selling drugs to minors the first three offenses would be a rising fine scale. First offense 100 dollars, second offense 500 dollars and third offense 1000 dollars. After that then jail time would be brought into the mix depending on the drug and circumstances. Pretty much what that implies is that if you are going to do drugs keep it in your house and don't bring that stuff out in public. Also it is dumb to put them in jail. If you take away peoples money than that is the less they have to spend on drugs. If you want to do drugs fine but don't do it around town do it in your house and don't endanger children.

The thing is the legalizing drugs would never ever happen because you wouldn't make any money from taxing it. It would be impossible to tax weed which is the most used drug in America. Marijuana will never be like tobacco because you don't have to manufacture it to make a product. All you have to do is grow it and your set. You would need to have licensed street dealers and growers and the money it would take in implement all that and upkeep the program would cost as much as the drug war. With my policy you don't go out looking for it but if you see it then you fine them. It will also reduce the number of people in prison and police resistance. If people know they won't go to jail for having drugs then they will be less likely to run from the police when stopped. It is something that people will have to accepted. If you want to do drugs fine but there is a price to pay when you break the rules of doing it.

Education needs to be fixed but it isn't with throwing more money at schools. It is by giving the parents tax breaks by their children getting good grades. Remember this was system used by their parents to motivate them to get good grades. Your parent would give you money when you got good grades. The problem seems to be now parents don't want to help their kids. So what needs to be done is for every A your kid gets a semester you get a 25 tax credit. Say your kid as six classes a semester that is 300 dollars a year if you kid were to get straight A's the entire year. What that does is encourage parents to work with their kids so they get tax relief. It indirectly will improve the kid-parent relationship in a lot homes as well because now parents will have a reason to spend time with their kids even if it is only for 20 or 30 minutes a night. Something has to be done to get parents in this country to become better and at least that is a start. It my seem sad that you have offer money to get parents to spend time with their kids and get involved with their schoolwork but it is basically the same system they grew up under. You have to offer rewards for people today to do anything. That is the key.

As far as Social Security goes it needs to be changed but it should be under a system of you get what you put into it. Your money shouldn't be going to someone else. I would almost set it up in a 401k type of program. You should chose how much you want to put into it and when your turn 65 you then get in to do what you please. It is dumb to have my money going to other people. You are punishing the people who work harder and rewarding the people who are lazy or throw their money away like the current system promotes.

Also the NASA budget needs to be cut dramatically. I would slash NASA's budget in half and then take that money to set up a program to study and solve the problem with the holes in the Ozone. Something is going to have to be done about it and the answer isn't on the moon or on Mars or on some space station floating around Earth. If NASA wants to keep spending then they need to earn their own money. It does no good to explore space if in a hundred years we will be dead.

We need to be able to dig in Alaska as well. Everyone bitches about how we are too dependent on the Middle East for oil but they refuse to let us drill in Alaska. First that area is inhospitable for the most part. I don't see the what is so bad about moving some moose and bears in order to become more self sufficient for our oil. It would create a lot of jobs as well.

Those are just some of my thoughts on what I would do.

I love open forums where everyone says what is ideal for them, because we find out that both sides aren't as far apart as we sometimes think.

I think the drug policy is a good one; I think it might be a little hypocritical to bust dealers, but not care if anyone uses the drugs. But I think that system would improve a lot. I mean, at least it would stop the tolken arrests you get now and then.

I don't agree with you about education though, but that's just a conflict of styles. You believe it starts in the family, I didn't really have any help from my parents because I didn't really need it and I'll even go as far to say that EVERYONE who gets good grades didn't recieve much help from home. I also don't think you will ever get kids to sit down with their parents every night; for one, once the kid gets to high school the parent probably isn't going to be much help because they probably don't remember the material. I think we need better teachers and more incentive for good teaching, but I think that's just a basic difference in our philosophies.

Social Security should be a pay as you go like it is now for a few reasons. First of all what happens when people inevitably lose all their retirement money through bad investing? Social Security is supposed to be a guaranteed safety net for people regardless of how rich or poor they were. The investment would have been fine in the 90's when the market never went down, but right now you have just as good a chance to lose your shirt than you do to make money. Secondly, Social Security is more than just retirement money. It helps out widows when they lose the income earning member of the family, it helps maimed workers with workers comp. It is a lot more than retirement and therefore we can't just have personal funds. Social Security is a safety net for everyone, if someone gets injured at 27 on the job and has put barely any money into the program they get screwed. That's just not how Social Security is supposed to work.

I agree on NASA, they have invented quite a few useful things while exploring space, but I really don't think we need a 90th moon expedition, or an expedition to mars. It just seems pointless.

I agree about global warming too, there needs to be a major governmental study about what's going on and how it can be remedied, although I hear the situation isn't as bad as it was in the 70's because we have drastically cut our use of CFCs and other crap like that.

Agree on drilling in Alaska too; I really don't think there's a good reason not to do it. Seems like a good idea to me.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
You believe it starts in the family, I didn't really have any help from my parents because I didn't really need it and I'll even go as far to say that EVERYONE who gets good grades didn't recieve much help from home. I also don't think you will ever get kids to sit down with their parents every night; for one, once the kid gets to high school the parent probably isn't going to be much help because they probably don't remember the material.



I agree.

I grew up without a father. And my parents don't know much english, but I still manage to get good grades.

So yea we all have different lives.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
You believe it starts in the family, I didn't really have any help from my parents because I didn't really need it and I'll even go as far to say that EVERYONE who gets good grades didn't recieve much help from home. I also don't think you will ever get kids to sit down with their parents every night; for one, once the kid gets to high school the parent probably isn't going to be much help because they probably don't remember the material.

agreed... my parents dont help me with homework simply because I dont think they can help... my dad is pretty smart but with the bull**** they teach now, I doubt he'll understand :S

plus, I dont ask cuz I'm a smart guy (H)

Originally posted by rony31
agreed... my parents dont help me with homework simply because I dont think they can help... my dad is pretty smart but with the bull**** they teach now, I doubt he'll understand :S




Couldn't agree more, "the bull**** they teach now"!! :D :D :D :rockman: :rockman:

My thought on education is this. It isn't the smart kids that need the help. I mean the only time I needed my parents help was for supplies or some help building. It is the dumb kids that need the help from their parents and or tutors.

It is also time for this new age teaching method trash to be thrown out the door. We don't need teachers who understand today's youth or who want to relate with kids. Teachers need to stop trying to be cool and start being hard asses. As much as I hate to admit in classes like Science and Math and that stuff a hard ass nose to the grindstone teacher is better suited than a teacher trying to pretend he is in Dead Poets Society. To be frank there will never be a better teaching method than Junior stop talking and do some work or your in trouble. You don't have to like your teacher you have to respect him. It seems like in high school I could pretty much walk all over most of my teachers.

I think it is ludicrous to give teachers bonus' based on student performance. What most teachers will then do is start making lessons a lot easier and there will be wide spread open book test throughout the country. I am not saying teachers can't be nice but they have to learn there is a time for work and a time for play and in a classroom there needs to be more work than play.

Also and I think this is a key to a good education program students need to be held back in the masses if they are not up to standard for passing onto the next grade. Everyone says that a kid will be scared for life if he gets held back. I disagree. If he has to hear taunting from his peers on a regular basis then that will more than likely make him more motivated to succeed and prove them wrong. The first three months of a school year should not be basic review because 30% of the class doesn't know what is going on because they have been passed unfairly.

It is time to stop coddling today's kids. It has done nothing but make most of them lazy arrogant pricks who have been spoiled from a young age. If they think they are too good to listen to their teacher and do schoolwork that is fine but lets see how the like repeating the 9th grade.

Originally posted by pennington10
My thought on education is this. It isn't the smart kids that need the help. I mean the only time I needed my parents help was for supplies or some help building. It is the dumb kids that need the help from their parents and or tutors.



But I'm a Moron and still get good grades. How is that possible that I need help if i'm doing okay? :confused:



:D

Originally posted by pennington10
I think it is ludicrous to give teachers bonus' based on student performance. What most teachers will then do is start making lessons a lot easier and there will be wide spread open book test throughout the country. I am not saying teachers can't be nice but they have to learn there is a time for work and a time for play and in a classroom there needs to be more work than play.


I agree with you to an extent, because the teacher I learned the most from was a bitch I hated because she made me do homework every night.

I wasn't suggesting bonuses based on teacher performance, I was suggesting that we pay teachers more than union construction workers. Not a knock against construction as a profession, but I think teachers are just a tad more important to our society. I think if teachers were paid what they deserve, the better teachers would actually pick teaching as a profession.

I actually learned the least from the teacher i hated the most. Because she was a bitch and not a good teacher.

I liked my best teacher because of his hands on style, instead of the state test-test-test style, i learned alot from him.

Originally posted by Moron
But I'm a Moron and still get good grades. How is that possible that I need help if i'm doing okay? Cuz you cheat.

those teaching styles teacher use; at first i thought they were just total bullsh.it. but once i got a feeling of how one style might would not work for me making me feel dumb (im pretty smart. REALLY!!), i began to take it seriously.

im a pretty boring textbook study type, the one who likes to memorize the "hard way". i cannot stand to study in a way that someone might call the "fun way" (incorporating the information needed to study to something else not related. i.e. games, lab, etc.). i dont like me being this way, because nowadays for my school this is how stuff are learned, but it really doesnt help for me to try to play along with those teaching style (believe me i tried.). the case goes with my english and science grades. in english, i used to be awesome with answering questions and stuff and getting the full credit, but this isnt the case nowadays. this was actually my teachers comments about my works. the case with science, well this was the study thing i mentioned before. some learn through learning while not knowing they are (the fun way), but i was the textbook guy, and interestingly my grades began to drop and drop from this.



oh yeah teachers play a big part. from style to the image people have of him/her(pretty, funny, etc. y'know, image.). because of this, you can like the teacher as a person, but totally hate the teaching part of that person. the case with my history teacher. a great person, but just downright lazy and NOT SUITED for teaching. honestly, i spent 3 full quarters watching movies and discussing about stupid things. sure this is good because you can play around, but you still have to LEARN. the rest of that year other than that 3 full quarters of "nonlearning" was 2 weeks of notes and the rest being copying off the textbook (ironic how i consider myself the textbook type when i didnt learn anything from copying. :crazyboy: )


yeah thats my thought on teachers. some personal stuff there.. you'll have to excuse me.

Originally posted by Vagegast
Cuz you cheat.

well doesn't that prove that i'm not a Moron? (H)

Well finally saw it yeah it was biased to the left and I felt it was a perfect complement to the right-biased American media.......


I will forever remember the Iraqi woman cursing in Arabic before the camera....it reminded me off my grandmother who lived through the refugee situation of WWI......and I cried like a baby and felt her pain and thirst for justice.....she is right God will bring justice....He always has......

As far as the political situation goes.. I don't think the movie will sway people.....people will vote the way they always have......for the best candidate.......


for me Michael Moore is a genius bc he finally put a face on the bombers and the bombed......

Joined this discussion late, but I liked the movie a lot. I keep up on the misdeeds of George W. Bush so I didn't learn anything new especially. But with the right-wing media dominating this country, the left needs a muckraker to publicize Bush's crimes.

Best review of the movie I have read so far...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5825

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I stopped reading when I saw the following sentence: "the evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin."

Uh-huh. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

If you look up the noun "deceit" in the dictionary, you will find that the definitions point you to the verb "deceive."


wow......republicans are actually resorting to definitions.....this kind of reminds me of the time when republican were scoffing at Bill Clinton for reportedly asking for the definition of "is"........


in other words you know someone's lying....

like I said before.......this film for me just put a face on all the victims....the rest I already knew......

I hope Bush pays for his crimes come November but i highly doubt he will........

.....something tells me that Osama will be captured soon...........

did anyone watch the Michael Moore interview on the O'Reilly Factor ?

Originally posted by Pontiakos
like I said before.......this film for me just put a face on all the victims....the rest I already knew......

I hope Bush pays for his crimes come November but i highly doubt he will........

.....something tells me that Osama will be captured soon...........
I bet Osama was already captured before, and they just keep im in a little cell where every once in a while they put a tape recorder nearby and then give the tape to the media. :crazyboy:

Originally posted by IceBlu
did anyone watch the Michael Moore interview on the O'Reilly Factor ? Yeah, O'Reilly was being his usual self (ass) but Moore isn't a great debater. He got O'Reilly at the end though with, "do you want to send your kid to fight in fallujah" and O'Reilly was like "oh yeah."

haha yeah O'Reilly was like "I would go myself" ... and Michael Moore said "No i want you to live" :p


heh.

I f*ckin hate Bill O'Reilly.

O'reilly really outclassed Moore. It was sad.

Moore came off as a sad waste of air after that interview.

The part about "sending the kids" and O'Reilly saying he would go himself was classic. Also the part about how Moore was pissed that we hadn't found Osama, but O'Reilly coming back saying that Moore wouldn't have even gone into Afghanistian as President....

Moore sucks. I don't like O'Reilly much either, but he creamed him.

Here is a partial transcript of the interview.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Originally posted by IceBlu
haha yeah O'Reilly was like "I would go myself" ... and Michael Moore said "No i want you to live" :p


heh.

I f*ckin hate Bill O'Reilly.

yeah he's a wanker....he's an extension of Bush on TV

Originally posted by Pontiakos
yeah he's a wanker....he's an extension of Bush on TV

That's why he nails Bush all the time...

You guys really have no idea what you are talking about sometimes.

No Duh...Moore even invited Bush to his screening in Crawford,TX near his ranch and as usual Bush said NO!!and being his usual self hardass:f***:

Ahah just read that interview and gotta say that O'Reilly guy is a major ass.

His assumptions are based upon the information given to the people by the government, therefore useless and biased.

His answer to the question would he sacrifice his son for the so called cause isn't honest. Of course he wouldn't say he wouldn't, it would make him and his beliefs look bad.

And the one thing he's clearly interested is of trying to justify the invasion of Iraq with the mistakes of the intelligence agencies.
It's really easier to blame it on someone other than your president.

I can't even think about why Michael Moore actually agreed to be interview by this guy. He's clearly just another tool of the system more interested in shutting up Moore than debating the real issues.

The Affleck was better. And Affleck is actually a smart and cool guy. Thought he'd feel bigger than the world and stay something really stupid. Very reasonable guy from what I saw.

"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"
That's not lying, O'Reilly is right, that's called ****ed up "intelligence," which George Bush had enough of all on his own...:D

(H)

Originally posted by Elder
I would pull out of Germany, AND South Korea. We don't need to be protecting South Korea anymore, and we did too much for Germany already.


North Korea seems like the ONLY thing close to a plausible threat the US have at this moment (and before the invasion of Iraq) and a threat to the their neighbours being South Korea one of your biggest allies and you want to withdraw your troops from there?


About Germany what is this fuss about? Why is Germany even being mentioned in this subject?

Originally posted by pennington10
Also the NASA budget needs to be cut dramatically. I would slash NASA's budget in half and then take that money to set up a program to study and solve the problem with the holes in the Ozone. Something is going to have to be done about it and the answer isn't on the moon or on Mars or on some space station floating around Earth. If NASA wants to keep spending then they need to earn their own money. It does no good to explore space if in a hundred years we will be dead.



Nice mentality you have there, maybe we should just stop developing in every other area because more like in 50 years than 100 you'll be dead. We'd still be hunting with bows and arrows for food if everyone in the human race thought like you.

Use that money you take away from science to blow up another country while you're at it.

Originally posted by Virgo
North Korea seems like the ONLY thing close to a plausible threat the US have at this moment (and before the invasion of Iraq) and a threat to the their neighbours being South Korea one of your biggest allies and you want to withdraw your troops from there?


About Germany what is this fuss about? Why is Germany even being mentioned in this subject?

North Korea is a threat. But the amount of troops we have stationed there wouldn't do much against a full scale invasion.

And Germany is mentioned because we have many troops and bases there as well. In fact, those troops are a huge boost to their economy.

Originally posted by Elder
And Germany is mentioned because we have many troops and bases there as well. In fact, those troops are a huge boost to their economy. Well, that "huge" boost must've been a bubble because Germany's economy right now is... (N).

:crazyboy:

yeah I bet the German economy relies heavily on having a couple of american bases here and there :rolleyes:

Moore came off very poorly in the O'Reilly interview, and I think O'Reilly got the best of him. The only thing Moore had was "would you send your kid to Fallujah". That was pretty piss poor to be honest. Moore missed a lot of chances to nail O'Reilly, but he missed every single one of them; he also said somethings that completely conflicted with what he actually believes.

First of all, O'Reilly was clearly lying when he said he'd go to Fallujah himself. Moore should have asked him, since he is too old to go to Iraq now, if he volunteered for Vietnam when he was young. O'Reilly clearly didn't.

Moore also said that Hitler never would have came to power if he was in charge. DUMB! That would imply a pre-emptive strike. He should have answered of course that Hitler was invading numerous nations, Hitler was sending off millions of European Jews to their deaths, etc. Saddam isn't much different, but invading him because of a link to terrorism is clearly a little screwed up. We were perfectly fine with him committing genocide and invading Kuwait, but then all of a sudden in late 2002 Saddam becomes a big threat? Moore missed his chance.

Now, while I think O'Reilly got the best of him, I think that Bill uses some tactics that lend to him not ever losing a debate. He comes in and attacks you with questions and never relents, he barely lets you speak and often cuts time short because of a need to get to commercial. He also researches relentlessly before conducting an interview, so not only do you have to answer his aggressive rapid fire questions on the spot with no time to think, but he is so well prepared that when you inevitably slip up, he pounces on you. I'm not saying it's unfair, but I think that this must be taken into account when watching the Factor. And by the way, hasn't he lost the right to call his show "The No Spin Zone"? Just a thought, but I don't think the biggest spinster on television should be allowed to call his show "The No Spin Zone."

I'd shoot Bill right on the head. Theres your "No Spin Zone." (H)

Originally posted by Virgo
yeah I bet the German economy relies heavily on having a couple of american bases here and there :rolleyes:

You'd be surprised... it also has something to do with Germany not needing much of a military budget either because we are there.

Originally posted by Elder
Also the part about how Moore was pissed that we hadn't found Osama, but O'Reilly coming back saying that Moore wouldn't have even gone into Afghanistian as President....

We wouldn't have had to go into Afghanistan if Moore was president, because I believe Moore would have been dismantling Al Qaeda before 9/11. Clinton had a plan to take them down, and they slapped it right onto Condi's desk. But Bush was not interested in terrorism. Fighting terrorism requires international cooperation, quality intelligence gathering, and unglamorous ground-level fighting. Do any of these sound like the M.O. of the Bush administration? Bush did nothing for nine months about terrorism, and indeed wanted to cut counter-terrorism spending, because new jet fighters and Star Wars missile defense systems don't do a hell of a lot for the war on terrorism. Bush must focus his defense on expensive technology lest his defense contractor donors get antsy. Bush was looking in the wrong place before 9/11. Sadly, his cabal is a bunch of Cold Warrior dinosaurs who either didn't grasp or simply ignored terrorism, the real threat of the post-Soviet world. Clinton understood the threat, and President Moore would have too.

O'Reilly comes off OK in his debates because he controls the rules. He can edit out anything he wants to, he can cut to commercial right when a guest is about to slam him, and he can always fall back on "SHUT UP, JUST SHUT UP. YOU'D BETTER GET OUT OF HERE BEFORE I RIP YOUR $#@&ing HEAD OFF."

I got your No-Spin Zone right here. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html#5)

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
We wouldn't have had to go into Afghanistan if Moore was president, because I believe Moore would have been dismantling Al Qaeda before 9/11. Clinton had a plan to take them down, and they slapped it right onto Condi's desk. But Bush was not interested in terrorism. Fighting terrorism requires international cooperation, quality intelligence gathering, and unglamorous ground-level fighting. Do any of these sound like the M.O. of the Bush administration? Bush did nothing for nine months about terrorism, and indeed wanted to cut counter-terrorism spending, because new jet fighters and Star Wars missile defense systems don't do a hell of a lot for the war on terrorism. Bush must focus his defense on expensive technology lest his defense contractor donors get antsy. Bush was looking in the wrong place before 9/11. Sadly, his cabal is a bunch of Cold Warrior dinosaurs who either didn't grasp or simply ignored terrorism, the real threat of the post-Soviet world. Clinton understood the threat, and President Moore would have too.

O'Reilly comes off OK in his debates because he controls the rules. He can edit out anything he wants to, he can cut to commercial right when a guest is about to slam him, and he can always fall back on "SHUT UP, JUST SHUT UP. YOU'D BETTER GET OUT OF HERE BEFORE I RIP YOUR $#@&ing HEAD OFF."

I got your No-Spin Zone right here. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html#5)

Dude... you are trying to tell me that Bush did nothing about Terrorism for 9 WHOLE months, but never make mention of all the **** that Clinton didn't do in 8 YEARS??? What a load.

That link you listed says it all to me though. Now I know where you get your talking points... The website that only allows lefty hand job artists to masturbate themselves.

Yeah, keep talking Elder. Keep pushing that FOX News assertion that the Clinton Administration is somehow more at fault than the Bush administration.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Yeah, keep talking Elder. Keep pushing that FOX News assertion that the Clinton Administration is somehow more at fault than the Bush administration.

Nim, please... I know you are smart. Even smart enough to realize that Clinton did nothing in 8 years to stop terrorism. Oh right, he bombed the asprin factory when he was set to testify...

There are really no excuses to be made for Clinton on this subject. I would hope that open minded people like yourself could at least admit that.

You know what, Bush had 9 months and it happened on his watch; this idea that it's Clinton's fault is just absurd.

I'm not saying it's Bush's fault either, it's not. But I watched Fox and Friends every day for a week after the 9/11 Commission Report and all it was was Clinton this and Clinton that. It's just such crap. It was not preventable, it could not have been expected, no one is to blame. There was little reason to believe that terrorism would be as dangerous to US civilians as we believe it is now, so inaction is not really an issue.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Moore also said that Hitler never would have came to power if he was in charge. DUMB! That would imply a pre-emptive strike. He should have answered of course that Hitler was invading numerous nations, Hitler was sending off millions of European Jews to their deaths, etc. Saddam isn't much different, but invading him because of a link to terrorism is clearly a little screwed up. We were perfectly fine with him committing genocide and invading Kuwait, but then all of a sudden in late 2002 Saddam becomes a big threat? Moore missed his chance.


That's very relative because the major reason that Hitler came to power was because of the financial crisis in Germany at that moment. Maybe if the US or the other countries would have helped them out with loans or investment, Hitler's party would never had won that election. Anyway Hitler wasn't even regarded as a threat when he came to power.

But I agree Moore isn't the best debater, he had opportunities to eat O'Reilly alive and he didn't. On the other hand Fahrenheit is really shocking and emotional, guess his talent is unbalanced.

I blame the intelligence services (FBI, CIA, DoD). They'd rather fight turf wars rather than the war on terror. Although I'm a big fan of George Tenet. I've read like 20 pages background on him... he's totally non-political from what I made up.

Originally posted by Virgo
That's very relative because the major reason that Hitler came to power was because of the financial crisis in Germany at that moment. Maybe if the US or the other countries would have helped them out with loans or investment, Hitler's party would never had won that election. Anyway Hitler wasn't even regarded as a threat when he came to power.

But I agree Moore isn't the best debater, he had opportunities to eat O'Reilly alive and he didn't. On the other hand Fahrenheit is really shocking and emotional, guess his talent is unbalanced.


in fact it was the German Jews that brought him to power.......if it wasn't for them and their propaganda machine he would have died in jail....

Originally posted by Virgo
yeah I bet the German economy relies heavily on having a couple of american bases here and there :rolleyes:
There are currently 71 000 US soldiers stationed in the southwest of Germany (Ramstein Airbase is the largest permanent US military community outside America).

That region would really suffer a population loss (that's what you have to call it).


I guess it wouldn't make a big difference to the German economy though.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
You know what, Bush had 9 months and it happened on his watch; this idea that it's Clinton's fault is just absurd.

I'm not saying it's Bush's fault either, it's not. But I watched Fox and Friends every day for a week after the 9/11 Commission Report and all it was was Clinton this and Clinton that. It's just such crap. It was not preventable, it could not have been expected, no one is to blame. There was little reason to believe that terrorism would be as dangerous to US civilians as we believe it is now, so inaction is not really an issue.

Of course inaction is an issue! Think of all the terrorism that happened under the Clinton and the reponse he gave to it... He thought arresting people was good enough...

I am not syaing Clinton is to blame for 9/11 either, but the reponse he gave to terrorism as a whole could only help to embolden those who attacked on 9/11.

He was soft, but so was the whole country. But the way you like to lay blame at Bush's feet, so can you lay blame at Clinton's.

Originally posted by Pontiakos
in fact it was the German Jews that brought him to power.......if it wasn't for them and their propaganda machine he would have died in jail.... Is it me or did he just blame the rise of Hitler... on Jews? What the f*ck?

Little anti-semitic piece of sh*t...

Originally posted by Vagegast
Is it me or did he just blame the rise of Hitler... on Jews? What the f*ck?

Little anti-semitic piece of sh*t...


oh God here we go........


.....Vagegast......



.....its a little known fact about pre-WWII Germany that the rich Jews of that era controlled the media masses.....

with their help....(brainwashing)......Hitler grew in power.


I'm not antisemetic for stating a fact, that you just aren't aware of am I?

In fact, I don't promote ANY kind of racial slurs...... what happened in the jewish holocaust is one of the greatest tragedies of our era. However that doesn't change historical facts....

What I said is historical fact. None that have read about that era would negate that the German Jews held the mass media reigns of that time, and that Hitler utilized that mass media to win the elections against the German communists. In fact the Germans voted for Hitler with the premise that they were saving the Fatherland from Communism. The (Jewish owned) and all German mass media promoted this slogan and voted for Hitler in a land slide.
The outcome we all know...

I don't debate bigots.

Shut the hell up Ponti****tard. You realize Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in proson right? So the Jews knew his plans and yet still helped him rise to power. That's why when he came to power the emmigration by German Jews out of Germany was huge right? Wait, that doesn't make sense at all. Hitler actively promoted anti-semitism, and if you honestly believe that German Jews spread anti-Jewish propaganda, you need to take a serious look at what you think you know. I have read extensively on the subject bud, I'm a history major, I love history, and I can assure you that you're an idiot. The idea that the Jews controlled resources in Germany is Nazi propaganda from the 1930s and if you think you're educated because you can spout exactly what Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Goebbles want you to spout, then fine. But you are completely wrong on the subject.

In America we have a War on Islam, it looks like 60 years after Hitler died we still have a War on Juddaism in Europe.

Originally posted by -Vince-
There are currently 71 000 US soldiers stationed in the southwest of Germany (Ramstein Airbase is the largest permanent US military community outside America).

That region would really suffer a population loss (that's what you have to call it).


I guess it wouldn't make a big difference to the German economy though.

What about the families as well? A lot of money is pumped into your country by way of the US military presence there. I need to find some numbers.

Here's a link to a press story... 20,000 plus jobs are provided by the Us military. That's no small number.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_777476,00.html

Originally posted by Vagegast
Is it me or did he just blame the rise of Hitler... on Jews? What the f*ck?

Little anti-semitic piece of sh*t...

Yup, those Jews sure loved Mr. Hit.

I think he was debating me on Israel once... oh yes, he was. I could have told you that bit of info before this thread.

Originally posted by Nimreitz


In America we have a War on Islam, it looks like 60 years after Hitler died we still have a War on Juddaism in Europe.

That's just France. Everywhere else in Europe they are having a War on Islam as well. ;)

Originally posted by Elder
What about the families as well? A lot of money is pumped into your country by way of the US military presence there. I need to find some numbers.

Here's a link to a press story... 20,000 plus jobs are provided by the Us military. That's no small number. And this is only from one small town that has 5,000 US troops...

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_777476,00.html

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Shut the hell up Ponti****tard. You realize Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in proson right? So the Jews knew his plans and yet still helped him rise to power. That's why when he came to power the emmigration by German Jews out of Germany was huge right? Wait, that doesn't make sense at all. Hitler actively promoted anti-semitism, and if you honestly believe that German Jews spread anti-Jewish propaganda, you need to take a serious look at what you think you know. I have read extensively on the subject bud, I'm a history major, I love history, and I can assure you that you're an idiot. The idea that the Jews controlled resources in Germany is Nazi propaganda from the 1930s and if you think you're educated because you can spout exactly what Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Goebbles want you to spout, then fine. But you are completely wrong on the subject.

In America we have a War on Islam, it looks like 60 years after Hitler died we still have a War on Juddaism in Europe.


so you're a history major *knees shaking*......congratulations..I've read "extensively" on the subject also....

and so has my brother
and his brother and I'm sure your family.............:rolleyes: ....point being that both you and I can read the same text and acquire diverse interpertations of past events, quite simply bc we weren't there. So the wisest method would be to listen to ALL sources and then form an opinion.

The difference between a historian, and a history afficionando is well............not much. YOU READ, I READ, you write essays, I write essays, you get a degree out of it and I, .....well I read just bc I am facinated by the cicle of human civilization.


The fact that you insult simply shows your inherent inability to support a civlized debate, at least in this forum were no immidiate consequeces exist, so I look past it.

first off ....yes......I do know when and where and by whom Mein Kampf was written and that is what makes what occured more autrocious, is the fact that they- the powerful Jews- knew of his plans and supported him anyway to save their assets from the "communists". We could debate on how widespread the availability of "Hitler's work" (his authorship of the work is also debatable--and if you race spurt ignorant insults you may it makes no difference) was to the German citizens of the time, and therefore the voters of that era may have just thought of him as great leader who would lead the country from economic and social decline.

but, (saw it coming)


.......Hitler allowed ~25,000 Jewish Germans to escape to the then up and coming Israeli state. He did so, with all comforts taken into consideration and even provided them with an undisclosed amount of money to "escape", and to the West it was at the time a goodwill gesture....

Now lets see how carefull you are in your studies.

Who were these Jews?
Why were they allowed to exit the country via German government subsidies?


Worse yet why were not all Jews treated in this manner?

-oh and you couldn't be more wrong, Judaism was not and is not the cause of this prejudice, its simpler than that, its money, and I'm not talking Jews alone, but they are the scapegoat.

If you want to believe that Church led slaughters of Jews throughout Europe of the past, have nourtured an aura of hatred in today's Europeans, you may, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I however you point you to the class struggle that has existed in the continent for 4,000 years, and continues to exist despite 2 major socio-economic movements and more than 100 separate wars.

Originally posted by Elder
Yup, those Jews sure loved Mr. Hit.

I think he was debating me on Israel once... oh yes, he was. I could have told you that bit of info before this thread.


Elder.....read my sig.....you said it not I...

if you want to label me as antisemetic go ahead......that doesn't change history.


I haven't said anything that can't be found in books. In fact that is all I've said.


MY personal opinion is...........

The Jewish holocaust was a great tragedy, one of many of the past and current era.

Who's to blame is up for debate.........who carried it out is as clear as day and will never(*edit) be debatable.

I just saw this film on Saturday and I really enjoyed it - definately worth seeing in my opinion. I doubt it will convince anyone over to Michael Moores opinion, but it is very interesting even if you know most of the arguments could probably be explained away in a few minutes. I did feel he ran out of material about halfway through and put in a bit much about the family of killed soldiers in Iraq and such like - all very touching but not very Bush blasting. I loved the bits where we actually saw Moore on screen, when he hired to Ice Cream truck to read the terrorism act to congress was pure class - and seeing the reactions Moore got when trying for interviews was also great. "Go get a proper job", "no no no no no"! and such like. Definately worth seeing, as I said, though not too convincing.

The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. I had a vague idea, but never had anyone put the facts before me as exactly as Moore did, though I'm sure there is plenty of evidence against all his points which he happened to leave out. That bit about the name blacked out on his military record, I forget the name, was very interesting. As I said, certainly woth seeing.

You do realise Moore is a supporter of Unions.

Obviously not.

Originally posted by rhizome17
You do realise Moore is a supporter of Unions.

Obviously not. Did I say I agreed with Michael Moore or even liked him? I didnt even say I agreed with this film. I chose my words very carefully.

Originally posted by Pontiakos



I haven't said anything that can't be found in books. In fact that is all I've said.



Yeah, a book like Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a good "book." Too bad it was a farce.

Point is, you can find anything in "books." It doesn't make them true.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech.

Nobody could ever prove that Bush went AWOL... keep pounding it, but it's not going to work.

But I do agree with you on your Moore assesment. He's kind of like a spark plug saying the things for the democratic party that they won't say themselves. It's kind of interesting to watch.

Now the Saudis are bashing Moore.


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml

well it would be natural the Saudis are bashing Moore. They are major investors in the US economy.


The movie shows how bad Bush really is.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech. I don't think so. It's more of a bridge between hard-core Nader leftists and moderate Democrats. Anything about the Saudis that was in the movie was already in his books and other publications. As for the Democrats taking over Moore's agenda, well, that'd be like surrenduring to the enemy. Tell me, what things that Moore is an advocate has been taken over or talked about by mainstream Democrats? I'd say about zero. The Iraq war? Kerry has the same position Bush has while Moore wants troops to pull out immediately. On the Saudis? Kerry talks about oil independence while Moore talks about Bush's personal relations interfering in the WoT. So again, give me examples of Moore taking over the DNC.

Originally posted by Elder
[B]Nobody could ever prove that Bush went AWOL... keep pounding it, but it's not going to work.

That's a logical fallacy. Proving a negative is difficult or impossible. Let me ask you this, I don't have a dog, but how would I prove that I don't have a dog? I can say look around, do you see a dog? But you could say I'm hiding it. I could say there is no dog hair or dog crap, but you could say I cleaned up well. This was what was so hideous about the build-up to the Iraq war. Bush framed it as "prove you don't have weapons of mass destruction." This was carefully calculated because the neo-cons knew it was impossible to prove he didn't have WMDs, so no matter what happened, they could invade. In contrast, it's pretty easy to prove I have a cat: here she is, come look at her, my cat.

Likewise, theoretically it is much harder to prove Bush went AWOL than it is to prove he was actually there. Proving he reported for duty would be utterly simple: pay stubs, photographs, produce a bunch of people who remember him, other kinds of records, blah blah blah. And yet Bush has continually failed to do this. Now I ask you, what evidence would satisfy you that Bush went AWOL? His commander does not remember him reporting for duty, in fact no one does, the documents he HAS produced are utterly unsatisfactory, his discharge papers show he was "not available for signature," he missed a physical, his file was seen in a trash can, now they say crucial microfiche has conveniently been destroyed, etc. Seems like the balance of evidence is tipping in the favor of desertion.

Look, plenty of people did crazy things to get out of 'Nam. The real problem is that Bush continues to lie about it, and style himself as a commander in chief when he stalwartly refused to serve his country even thousands of miles away from men like John Kerry who were in the sh!t. His contempt for the military is demonstrated not only by his abandoment of service, but also by his slashing of veterans' benefits. How can you justify this? And again I ask you, what, apart from the logical fallacy "prove he wasn't there," would satisfy you that Bush wasn't there?

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
That's a logical fallacy. Proving a negative is difficult or impossible. Let me ask you this, I don't have a dog, but how would I prove that I don't have a dog? I can say look around, do you see a dog? But you could say I'm hiding it. I could say there is no dog hair or dog crap, but you could say I cleaned up well. This was what was so hideous about the build-up to the Iraq war. Bush framed it as "prove you don't have weapons of mass destruction." This was carefully calculated because the neo-cons knew it was impossible to prove he didn't have WMDs, so no matter what happened, they could invade. In contrast, it's pretty easy to prove I have a cat: here she is, come look at her, my cat.

Likewise, theoretically it is much harder to prove Bush went AWOL than it is to prove he was actually there. Proving he reported for duty would be utterly simple: pay stubs, photographs, produce a bunch of people who remember him, other kinds of records, blah blah blah. And yet Bush has continually failed to do this. Now I ask you, what evidence would satisfy you that Bush went AWOL? His commander does not remember him reporting for duty, in fact no one does, the documents he HAS produced are utterly unsatisfactory, his discharge papers show he was "not available for signature," he missed a physical, his file was seen in a trash can, now they say crucial microfiche has conveniently been destroyed, etc. Seems like the balance of evidence is tipping in the favor of desertion.

Look, plenty of people did crazy things to get out of 'Nam. The real problem is that Bush continues to lie about it, and style himself as a commander in chief when he stalwartly refused to serve his country even thousands of miles away from men like John Kerry who were in the sh!t. His contempt for the military is demonstrated not only by his abandoment of service, but also by his slashing of veterans' benefits. How can you justify this? And again I ask you, what, apart from the logical fallacy "prove he wasn't there," would satisfy you that Bush wasn't there?

Sigh... he already provided all that information as well as witnesses who say he was there.

Good God, get over your ******* hatred so that your mind won't be so clouded in the future. There is more evidence of Kerry faking injuries in Vietnam to get purple hearts than there is of Bush being AWOL, but I doubt you will talk about that.

I like the way you articulate yourself, but you're getting annoying really fast.

Originally posted by Elder
Yeah, a book like Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a good "book." Too bad it was a farce.

Point is, you can find anything in "books." It doesn't make them true.

i wasn't reffering to different genres or the crux of non-fiction vs fiction.......

but if you want take that tangent go ahead, I'm not taking it with you.....bc then we get into the debate of what is historical text and what isn't,.......that is too long of a debate.


Historical texts, as they have been labeled, are my source, not fiction. Although sometimes fiction, through its personifications, analogies, and metaphors can sometimes incript and promote ideas that orthodox historical texts would never dare.

Originally posted by Vagegast
I don't debate bigots.

in one sentence you have done nothing more than label yourself....


a bigot is one who doesn't accept other people's beliefs, cultures, or ideas.


:confused:

Originally posted by Elder
Sigh... he already provided all that information as well as witnesses who say he was there.

As I recall, the witness they produced couldn't keep his story straight, and in fact claimed he saw Bush on a date Bush says he wasn't there. If there is all this evidence to show he was there, I'm sure you wouldn't mind summing it up.

Again, if he just comes out and says "You're right, I jumped over hundreds of people using my family's name to get into the National Guard, and then I did not report for duty" it's less of a problem. I don't know what the statue of limitations for AWOL/desertion is but it's probably expired. What is so troublesome is the constant lying and the destruction of evidence in furtherance of these lies, and the posturing as a military man, fighter pilot hotshot, and so on. If he didn't want to go to Vietnam he could have done it like Muhammad Ali and been a national hero, as of this moment he's just a lying draft dodger.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
as of this moment he's just a lying draft dodger.


But I bet you are a Clinton fan aren't you?

Hey, I think that Vietnam was unjust and I don't blame anyone who wanted to get out of that death trap. I think an important distinction is that while Clinton's efforts to evade the draft were elaborate and intricate, they were not illegal. Going AWOL/deserting is. If Bush got into the national guard and served, it would be different. On top of that, Clinton did not lead us into another Vietnam like Bush did in Iraq, and the fact that Bush is perhaps the most hawkish president in American history while being unwilling to even serve in the Nation Guard turns my stomach.

But your retort brings up an interesting point: the Republicans who were so appalled by Clinton's actions during Vietnam are mysteriously willing to accept a draft dodger/deserter as their leader. I quote Dan Quayle in 1992 regarding Clinton: "He is going to have to come clean with the American people and answer the questions." And I quote Colin Powell: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed . . . managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

To sum up: Draft dodging? Not the real issue. Going AWOL/deserting? A much bigger issue. Lying about it and destroying evidence? A still bigger issue. The hypocrisy of Republicans? A big issue, but not surprising.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Hey, I think that Vietnam was unjust and I don't blame anyone who wanted to get out of that death trap. I think an important distinction is that while Clinton's efforts to evade the draft were elaborate and intricate, they were not illegal. Going AWOL/deserting is. If Bush got into the national guard and served, it would be different. On top of that, Clinton did not lead us into another Vietnam like Bush did in Iraq, and the fact that Bush is perhaps the most hawkish president in American history while being unwilling to even serve in the Nation Guard turns my stomach.

But your retort brings up an interesting point: the Republicans who were so appalled by Clinton's actions during Vietnam are mysteriously willing to accept a draft dodger/deserter as their leader. I quote Dan Quayle in 1992 regarding Clinton: "He is going to have to come clean with the American people and answer the questions." And I quote Colin Powell: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed . . . managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

To sum up: Draft dodging? Not the real issue. Going AWOL/deserting? A much bigger issue. Lying about it and destroying evidence? A still bigger issue. The hypocrisy of Republicans? A big issue, but not surprising.

1. Nobodyhas come up with the evidence to prove he went AWOL. I don't know how many times I need to tell you that.

2. Evading the draft is illegal...

3. Iraq is no Vietnam... sigh.

4. There wouldn't have been any wars if 9/11 hadn't of happened.

5. Clinton still dodged the draft, and until you can prove otherwise, Bush didn't.

Pontiakos, I won't debate this issue. Even if some Jews aided Hitler's rise to power, the fact that you have lumped it together in a statement somewhat like "The Jews aided Hitler's rise to power" shows a viewpoint that is scary. It is certainly possible, and probably certain that a few people who hapened to be Jewish helped him for personal gain, but to lump all jews with those selfish individuals shows the intent to slander the name of Juddaism, and your viewpoint is entrenched in religious bigotry.

Nobodyhas come up with the evidence to prove he went AWOL. I don't know how many times I need to tell you that.

Bush has never proved he was there, which is a far simpler task than proving he wasn't. The fact that he either refuses or is unable to produce proof doesn't raise a red flag for you? The evidence that he was not there is far stronger. If you believe he was there, please point to some convicing evidence. And again I ask, what would lead you to believe he went AWOL? Or is there anything that could change your opinion of Bush? If there isn't, just admit it, I won't waste any more of my time.

Evading the draft is illegal...

Cheney got 5 deferments, was that illegal? Bill Clinton was creative with regard to how he got out of service. If you think that's unethical, that's your opinion, but he didn't do anything illegal.

There wouldn't have been any wars if 9/11 hadn't of happened.

Yes, there would have been. Plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq existed before Bush was even installed by the Supreme Court. This is something the neo-conservatives wanted. They were going to do it one way or another. The preposterous fictions they spread about their justifications for Iraq proved that.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Pontiakos, I won't debate this issue. Even if some Jews aided Hitler's rise to power, the fact that you have lumped it together in a statement somewhat like "The Jews aided Hitler's rise to power" shows a viewpoint that is scary. It is certainly possible, and probably certain that a few people who hapened to be Jewish helped him for personal gain, but to lump all jews with those selfish individuals shows the intent to slander the name of Juddaism, and your viewpoint is entrenched in religious bigotry.


Well I never actually said it was all jews.(my apologies if that is how it came across)......just some of the 25,000.......you're right it is scary.....its not just scary it's disgusting, and unfortunately it shows how greed can drive humanity to such repulsive ends as to not even consider its fellow man......but alas such is the history of man. Uncaring, jingoistic........animal like for more the 6000 years of recorded history, and I'm sure for more to come.

And this wasn't my personal viewpoint but that of others, I just chose to shine light on it.

On the contrary, my viewpoint was expressed in a different post. I don't think anyone will disagree with it.

To sum it up the jewish holocaust was a new low for humanity, on whom the blame falls is debatable, who carried out is not debatable, and is being/should be punished.



one last thing both you and Elder labelled me as a bigot for expressing the viewpoint of sources that you deam unworthy to debate......

I listed the definition of bigotry.........I have read all sides, my opinion stands and is well informed. I am open to other's opinions, and will debated them if I disagree with them, as I have done in the past.

you label me as a religious bigot, even though I not once expressed the superiority of one religious belief to another.........so I'm confused.

Bigotry is dismissing other's ideas as inferior.......who has done that?

certainly not me, and certainly by not gloryfying one religion past another.

Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Delay. They all dodged the draft someway or another but none of them did anything that could put be called blatantly illegal, although the verdict's still out on Bush.

Bush -- joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid being drafted knowing that the Vietnamese would never invade Texas or the U.S. by planes. He also wanted to fly planes. Question still on whether he attended. I couldn't care less but I despise him not being honest about it and questioning Kerry's service.

Cheney -- got a four deferments because his wife was pregnant. like he said: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Clinton -- went to Oxford in England. Smart move. Only one to oppose the war.

Delay -- got a student deferment and avoided the lottery. claimed that he didn't get drafted because Asians and other minorities were drafted instead of him to avoid the life of the ghetto. later on during the war, he became a cockroach an exterminator. during kosovo, he blasted democrats and clinton for voting in favor of the war. he also went on tv to say that the u.s. was about lose the war in kosovo during the war.

Originally posted by Vagegast
Bush -- joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid being drafted knowing that the Vietnamese would never invade Texas or the U.S. by planes. He also wanted to fly planes. Question still on whether he attended. I couldn't care less but I despise him not being honest about it and questioning Kerry's service.

That's an excellent point which I hadn't brought up. Dodging the draft is one thing, lying about it is another, but the way in which the Bush administration and their allies have desecrated the records of those who did serve is unforgiveable. We all know about what they say about Kerry. But then there is Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, who was juxtaposed with pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (his opponent, Saxby Chambliss, dodged the draft with a "bad knee." Talk to Cleland about a "bad knee"). They even claimed John McCain - WHO IS A MEMBER OF THEIR OWN PARTY! - went insane in a POW camp in Vietnam. It's absolutely appalling. Do you remember Clinton talking sh!t about Bob Dole's service in WWII back in 1996? Did he claim Dole lost the use of his arm in a shootout with a hooker or something? Of course not, but I bet Karl Rove would. Bush has nothing but contempt for the military, that's why he refused to serve, insults their veterans, sends them off to die without propoer protection for political and financial gain, and cuts their benefits.

About the John McCain thing, he had a temper so it looked possible. He later releases some medical documents I think that showed he was insane. Oh, by the way, Bush asked McCain to be his vice-president.

I bet McCain said "In the words of Dick Cheney, go f*ck yourself."

Oh, the Bush-ites also spread a rumor that McCain fathered a black child with a prostitute. This rumor was derived from the fact that McCain adopted a little girl from a Mother Theresa orphanage in Bangladesh.

This is the man who supposedly would restore integrity to the White House. But I don't think it gets any lower than that.

Or in the words of Teresa Heinz Kerry, "Shove it." (H)

I bet alot of people who voted Bush in the 2000 primary would vote McCain if they knew what they know now.

Originally posted by Vagegast
Or in the words of Teresa Heinz Kerry, "Shove it." (H)

did she really say that?

To a reporter she did

Yes. Because she didn't want to put up with crap from a publication who had also said that her charities helped fund Osama bin Laden.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Yes. Because she didn't want to put up with crap from a publication who had also said that her charities helped fund Osama bin Laden.


at the convention?!?.....wow, powerful words...

No, not at the convention, it was to some guy who was harrassing her and misquoting her after a speech. It's not like she said it on the floor of the Senate.

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
That's an excellent point which I hadn't brought up. Dodging the draft is one thing, lying about it is another, but the way in which the Bush administration and their allies have desecrated the records of those who did serve is unforgiveable. We all know about what they say about Kerry. But then there is Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, who was juxtaposed with pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (his opponent, Saxby Chambliss, dodged the draft with a "bad knee." Talk to Cleland about a "bad knee"). They even claimed John McCain - WHO IS A MEMBER OF THEIR OWN PARTY! - went insane in a POW camp in Vietnam. It's absolutely appalling. Do you remember Clinton talking sh!t about Bob Dole's service in WWII back in 1996? Did he claim Dole lost the use of his arm in a shootout with a hooker or something? Of course not, but I bet Karl Rove would. Bush has nothing but contempt for the military, that's why he refused to serve, insults their veterans, sends them off to die without propoer protection for political and financial gain, and cuts their benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Cleland and Chambliss. I live in the state where both of them are from... Cleland became a very left liberal when he was basically a middle of the road/conservative democrat who started to vote against most military spending proposals as well as intelligence budgets. He has become a disgrace, and the people of Georgia voted his sorry ass out.

Losing your limbs in a war doesn't qualify you to be a hero, nor does it entitle you to be a Senator.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Yes. Because she didn't want to put up with crap from a publication who had also said that her charities helped fund Osama bin Laden.

Here's more on the story from the other side. Yes, the peaceful liberals in this country like to give death threats now.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590838

It entitles you to better than being compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddamn Hussein by a draft dodger. And losing three limbs for your contry doesn't make you a hero? Do you have the same contempt for our armed forces that Bush does?

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
It entitles you to better than being compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddamn Hussein by a draft dodger. And losing three limbs for your contry doesn't make you a hero? Do you have the same contempt for our armed forces that Bush does?

Here's a link that just about sums up what happened to Cleland. It's a tactic used by many liberals today... claim that your patriotism is being questioned when someone brings up your voting against the military in congress. In the case of Kerry this year, he just left out his whole Senate career during his big speech...

http://66.216.126.164/flashback/lowry200407291758.asp

Make sure you read the part about Osama and Hussein... I don't even know if you've seen the ad, but I have, countless times. Cleland is a whiney bitch.

Here's another link for you. Just about sums it up as well...


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002637