Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 5
So I got this chain e-mail today.

John Kerry on Defense -- I hadn't seen this list printed before. It would make one heck of a mailer if it were sent to voters. (So... send it to as many voters as you can!)

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle

He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank

He voted to kill every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988

He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system

He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle

He voted to Kill the 60 F-16

He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade

He voted to Kill the B-1

He voted to Kill the B-2

He voted to Kill the Patriot Anti Missile System

He voted to Kill the FA-18

He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!! Is THIS a President YOU want?

Please pass this on, as many people may not know how bad it is. And don't limit your sending to just your Republican friends. Everyone needs to know.


I immediately went to Snopes and sent her a response giving her the facts and followed up with a call. I'm just appalled at my parents. They are not stupid people, and yet they don't seem interested in educating themselves about the truth on the candidates. She actually said "God help us if Kerry gets elected." I can't help wondering how many more "average" Americans are falling for this crap.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Mark,

I got an smear email about Mrs. Kerry yesterday. I wrote the person back that while I respect their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, these emails do nothing but create more animosity and are bad for the political process, and to kindly not forward anything like that to me again. I got no response. For all I know, they are offended, but I don't care. These emails are pond scum as far as I'm concerned.

The sad thing is there are lemmings out there who are following this garbage and thinking it must be true. It's like people want someone to do the thinking for them.

I'm sorry your mom sent you the email. God help my dad if he tries to send me something similar.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The sad thing is there are lemmings out there who are following this garbage and thinking it must be true. It's like people want someone to do the thinking for them.

Boy that's hitting the nail on the head.

Just think of all those poor lemming who are even paying money to see and believe Mikey Moore's F9/11.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I got this chain e-mail today.

I always reply to all with the link to a Snopes or similar, and tell them to stop sending me such nonsense. This includes when my parents send the occasional internet rumor or nonsense.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have you seen it, meathead ?

meathead..... Is that the best you can do? Are you one of those lemmings who paid to see Mikeys drivel?

To answer you question no I have not seen it and I won't until it comes to the $1.00 theatre. I figure I can blow $1.00 to see it for myself, but that would be the most I would spend. What difference does that make anyway? If you want to argue that I can't have an opinion about something I haven't seen firsthand, go ahead make a fool of yourself and make the argument. If you want to argue that Mikey's fairtale is all true, go ahead and get in line with the rest of the MM lemmings.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
To answer you question no I have not seen it

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, do you ?

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
ES,

You do realize that not everyone who has seen Michael Moore's film are hardcore liberals. Even conservatives have seen the film. It is important to note that the film is an editorial piece. You can take what he is saying or not.

I have seen the film. It is clear Moore has an agenda, but I expected as much. Whether you believe what he says or not, the film should make a person think about what it means to go to war, and did we go to war for the right reasons.

In the end it is up to the individual to decide if he/she believes we went to war with Iraq for the right or wrong reasons.

I have a problem with those who are so sharp to criticize a film they have not seen. Many of these people spout a bunch of stuff I have heard on Fox or seen on Drduge, as if they are preaching the gospel.

Personally I don't care if you see the film. But your argument is a ton more credible if you do.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You do realize that not everyone who has seen Michael Moore's film are hardcore liberals. Even conservatives have seen the film. It is important to note that the film is an editorial piece. You can take what he is saying or not.

I agree and I'm not saying that everyone who sees the film is a lemming. But I've heard plenty of lemmings who hoover everything that the film says or anyone else says as long as it's anti-Bush. The lemmings are those who don't care if it's true or not as long as it supports what they wish to believe. There are plenty of these lemmings on the right as well as the left. g2w wants everyone to believe that the only lemmings are those who believe the Kerry propoganda. I'm saying there are lemmings on both sides of the isle and they are both equally foolish.

In the end it is up to the individual to decide if he/she believes we went to war with Iraq for the right or wrong reasons.

Sure, we all have to decide what we think is most important. I just wish that all the people who are spreading lies and propaganda could be held accountable for what they are doing.

I have a problem with those who are so sharp to criticize a film they have not seen. Many of these people spout a bunch of stuff I have heard on Fox or seen on Drduge, as if they are preaching the gospel.

Enough has been written and reported about F9/11 that I can form an opinion on it's accuracy and worth. I didn't criticize the film, I made fun of it because it's producer tried to pass if off as a documentary when in truth it's no such thing. I also said that anyone who hoovered it is a lemming and I stand by that remark.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sneakpuff is a creampuff, all mushy on the inside.

Oh my, I'm cut to the quick....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
"I just wish that all the people who are spreading lies and propaganda could be held accountable for what they are doing."

Propaganda is not a one sided deal. Are you willing to hold the conservative accountable for the garbage they spread? Or do they get a free pass?




"Enough has been written and reported about F9/11 that I can form an opinion on it's accuracy and worth."

Now who is the lemming. Go see it for yourself, and judge it on its merits, not on what others tell you. You willo have a FAR more credible argument. Otherwise you are a lemming,

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Propaganda is not a one sided deal. Are you willing to hold the conservative accountable for the garbage they spread? Or do they get a free pass?

Did you read my post? I thought I made it very clear that there are plenty of lemmings on both sides of the isle. I don't apprecite lies and propaganda from any one or side.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't apprecite lies and propaganda from any one or side.



<using Dr. Evil voice> Riiiiiight!

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
You do realize that not everyone who has seen Michael Moore's film are hardcore liberals. Even conservatives have seen the film. It is important to note that the film is an editorial piece. You can take what he is saying or not.

Here, you can check this:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-23-2004/0002217158&EDATE=

A Harris poll among a base of all adults indicates that 17% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans, and 18% of Independents have seen it, while an additional 30% of Democrats, 10% of Republicans, and 20% of Independents are likely to see it.

Among those who saw it, 89% of Democrats, 44% of Republicans, and 70% of Independents rated the movie as "Excellent". Maybe you oughta see it, sneak. You might be one of that 44%, who knows?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I immediately went to Snopes and sent her a response giving her the facts and followed up with a call

The difference is, if democrats were to send out an email full of negative military moves Bush has made, we wouldn't have to lie.

Caat
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Sure, we all have to decide what we think is most important. I just wish that all the people who are spreading lies and propaganda could be held accountable for what they are doing.

Does that include the current administration? Or are they allowed to put out propaganda because they are Republicans, or in office?


Of course, if you really want to see "lemming" behavior and beliefs, I could point out some of your posts when you argued in favor of invading Iraq.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Sure, we all have to decide what we think is most important. I just wish that all the people who are spreading lies and propaganda could be held accountable for what they are doing.
/////////
Does that include the current administration? Or are they allowed to put out propaganda because they are Republicans, or in office?


it's Neither Lies nor Propaganda (by def.) because they are Republicans.


-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Among those who saw it, 89% of Democrats, 44% of Republicans, and 70% of Independents rated the movie as "Excellent". Maybe you oughta see it, sneak. You might be one of that 44%, who knows?

I plan on seeing it, I'm just waiting until it gets to the $1.00 theatre. Actually I hardly ever go to movies unless it's at the $1.00 show, I'm not a big movie goer.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Does that include the current administration? Or are they allowed to put out propaganda because they are Republicans, or in office?


Of course, if you really want to see "lemming" behavior and beliefs, I could point out some of your posts when you argued in favor of invading Iraq.


David,

This is triesome and insulting, so if your goal is insult me, you're doing just fine.

We obviously have a completely different set of values, so I doubt we will ever agree on what's important and what isn't. I think the Iraq war is and has been worthwhile. If for no other reason than that we removed Saddam and stopped him from hurting the Iraqi people further and are in the process of giving them back their country so they can choose how they wish to live. You can argue all you want about how there is still pain and suffering there and it won't make any difference to me, because I value freedom and oppertunity more than I value security.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You can argue all you want about how there is still pain and suffering there and it won't make any difference to me, because I value freedom and oppertunity more than I value security.


That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A free people must be secure. They go hand in hand. Can't speak for oppertunity...I never heard of it. <g>

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
This is triesome and insulting, so if your goal is insult me, you're doing just fine.

And your post wasn't??!!

You seem to think that anyone oppossing the invasion of Iraq is a "lemming"; do you not think that those people might be insulted by that remark?

Sometimes you reap what you sow.


You can argue all you want about how there is still pain and suffering there and it won't make any difference to me, because I value freedom and oppertunity more than I value security.

Odd, it is that same feeling that makes me oppose much of what Bush is doing. It seems that freedom is taking a backseat to security (or more accurately, being left by the side of the road).


Oh, and you were quite insulting at the time of the Iraqi invasion, too; which is why I mentioned that time period. You seem to think that you are so superior to any liberal, and come across with a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Perhaps you don't mean to, but you do. I'm simply pointing out that you are just as capable of the same errors as any of the rest of us.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A free people must be secure. They go hand in hand. Can't speak for oppertunity...I never heard of it.

Bologna.

When the pilgims came here they had unlimited oppertunity, but the only security they had was what they could provide for them selves. If you want to take this to a personal level, I'm a contractor and I have no security but my witts and work ethic, what I do have in unlimited oppertunity. If I wanted secuirty, I would get a job as a mail carrier, which would give me a paycheck no matter what, but little oppertunity.

In my view neither choice is wrong, we need mail carriers and we need contractors. However, the views and opinions held by contractors and mail carriers will hardly ever be the same because they have completely different values.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When the pilgims came here they had unlimited oppertunity, but the only security they had was what they could provide for them selves. If you want to take this to a personal level, I'm a contractor and I have no security but my witts and work ethic, what I do have in unlimited oppertunity. If I wanted secuirty, I would get a job as a mail carrier, which would give me a paycheck no matter what, but little oppertunity.

In my view neither choice is wrong, we need mail carriers and we need contractors. However, the views and opinions held by contractors and mail carriers will hardly ever be the same because they have completely different values.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big difference between job security and security of a people. Look at the people in Sudan. Their freedoms are at risk every single day with the slaughter that is going on. How can they truly be a free people, if they are not secure?

BTW - please learn how to spell opportunity.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And your post wasn't??!!

No it wasn't.

You seem to think that anyone oppossing the invasion of Iraq is a "lemming"; do you not think that those people might be insulted by that remark?

I don't think that and I didn't say it. I didn't mention Bush, or Kerry, I did say that people who hoover everything in F9/11 are lemmings and I will say it again. That doesn't mean that anyone that opposes the war in Iraq is a lemming, or anyone who supports Kerry or Bush is one either. It does imply that anyone who believes all the propaganda from either side is a lemming.

Sometimes you reap what you sow.

Sometimes, sometimes not, sometimes we reap where have not sown, sometimes we sew and never reap. Lifes a bitch and then ya die.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did say that people who hoover everything in F9/11 are lemmings and I will say it again.

What the heck to you mean by "hoover"?


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is a big difference between job security and security of a people. Look at the people in Sudan. Their freedoms are at risk every single day with the slaughter that is going on. How can they truly be a free people, if they are not secure?

To me, there is no difference. See what I mean, your life view is completely different than mine is. I'm not trying to change your view, I'm just trying to get you to see mine.

You see for me, I would rather die fighting for the right to do as I please, than live for another 50 years under someone's thumb.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You can argue all you want about how there is still pain and suffering there and it won't make any difference to me, because I value freedom and oppertunity more than I value security.

ES




Spoken like someone who has never had an army shooting at him with the intent to kill him. The bravest souls are those who sit comfortably on their sofas.

And it's OPPORTUNITY not oppertunity.

And all that makes one wonder if you think we should go to Africa next to liberate some of her people. Clearly they are suffering there and we could go and liberate them and offer them freedom and OPPORTUNITY.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What the heck to you mean by "hoover"?

You ever seen a Hoover vacume? To hoover is to suck up everything.

ES

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You see for me, I would rather die fighting for the right to do as I please, than live for another 50 years under someone's thumb.

So what's your feeling about the PATRIOT ACT, with its provisions for things such as requiring bookstores and libraries to turn over lists of all people who have purchased/borrowed certain books (without a suspect or a search warrant)?


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And all that makes one wonder if you think we should go to Africa next to liberate some of her people. Clearly they are suffering there and we could go and liberate them and offer them freedom and OPPORTUNITY.

And of course, don't forget that this entire line of reasoning for the invasion was not used until AFTER the invasion and the discovery that there really weren't WMDs or imminent threats.


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And all that makes one wonder if you think we should go to Africa next to liberate some of her people. Clearly they are suffering there and we could go and liberate them and offer them freedom and OPPORTUNITY.

Maybe.. We should do the best we can, we can't do everything, but we can do something.

http://odt.uwmc.washington.edu/starfishstory.html

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You see for me, I would rather die fighting for the right to do as I please, than live for another 50 years under someone's thumb.


Being secure and being under someone's thumb are different.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You ever seen a Hoover vacume? To hoover is to suck up everything.

Yes, I've seem a Hoover vacuum; it's just that the context didn't make a lot of sense. I'm assuming now that you are using it as "believe".

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Being secure and being under someone's thumb are different.

Yes they are, but if security has to be sacraficed in order to gain freedom, them security goes out the door as far as I'm concerned. Right now, that's the sacrafice that the Iraqi people must make to gain their freedom and get out from under Saddam's thumb. We are there helping them achive this and we are getting a bloody nose trying. Some people here want to cut and run, or blame Bush because of the bloody nose, I don't.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
And your post wasn't??!!

No it wasn't.


There are none so blind as those who will not see. You consistently post highly partisan posts here depicting anyone who does not share your political views as an idiot, and you're surprised that anyone finds your posts offensive.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, I've seem a Hoover vacuum; it's just that the context didn't make a lot of sense. I'm assuming now that you are using it as "believe".


'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.)


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You consistently post highly partisan posts here depicting anyone who does not share your political views as an idiot, and you're surprised that anyone finds your posts offensive.

Hogwash, what was partisan about my posts in this thread?

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Hogwash, what was partisan about my posts in this thread?

That's what I mean. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you stand there blinking, saying "what elephant? I don't see an elephant!"

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes they are, but if security has to be sacraficed in order to gain freedom, them security goes out the door as far as I'm concerned.


I never said anything about sacrifice. I said they go hand in hand.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's what I mean. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you stand there blinking, saying "what elephant? I don't see an elephant!"

And you can't find the elephant you're so afraid of. I maintain there is no elephant, you're the one screaming about an elephant.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I never said anything about sacrifice. I said they go hand in hand.

And I've been saying they do not go hand in hand. Security and Freedom are not the same thing and in the history of the world are rarely found in the same place and time. We are very fortunate to have them both where we live, but most of the people in the world do not share our good fortune.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We are very fortunate to have them both where we live, but most of the people in the world do not share our good fortune.



That was my point. That you for agreeing with me. Now....<ploink> Sorry you are now in the p-box.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now....<ploink> Sorry you are now in the p-box.

I'm crushed, but thanks for agreeing with me anyway.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That was my point. That you for agreeing with me. Now....<ploink> Sorry you are now in the p-box.



Of course the point still is you can't have freedom with some sense of security. I'm just glad troll sees it now.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
And you can't find the elephant you're so afraid of. I maintain there is no elephant, you're the one screaming about an elephant.

Everyone can see the elephant except you. David was, you may recall, the first person to mention there was an elephant. If you're really uncertain about this, we can hold a little poll and see how many people see the elephant. I think you know what the results will be.

I personally think you're being disingenuous, that you do see the elephant, but you're willing to argue that it's actually just a big, gray, naked mouse until we get tired and go home. Why you think it's at all convincing is beyond me.

For the record, we're not afraid of the elephant. We just find it annoying, and wish it would leave.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For the record, we're not afraid of the elephant. We just find it annoying, and wish it would leave.

Now you want to change the subject because you can't back up your statement. There was nothing partisan about the post. You can dance and dodge all you want but that's the truth, you are wrong and I called you on it.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm still waiting to see SneakLemming's response to the question about the Patriot Act.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Now you want to change the subject because you can't back up your statement. There was nothing partisan about the post. You can dance and dodge all you want but that's the truth, you are wrong and I called you on it.

Actually, Sneak is right. There was nothing implicitly partisan about the post.

It was insulting anyone who paid to see F9/11 and agreed with the overall point of the movie, regardless of political affiliation.

Based, of course, on not having seen the movie.


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually, Sneak is right. There was nothing implicitly partisan about the post.

Thank you.

It was insulting anyone who paid to see F9/11 and agreed with the overall point of the movie, regardless of political affiliation.

Well that's almost correct and true, but not quite. In order to get the real correct and true meaning of the particular post in question, you need to read the post I was responding to first.

Post I responded to:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=21117242

Post in question:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=21117265

Further clairification of post in question:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=21117602
<snip>
There are plenty of these lemmings on the right as well as the left. g2w wants everyone to believe that the only lemmings are those who believe the Kerry propoganda. I'm saying there are lemmings on both sides of the isle and they are both equally foolish.

OK, that's it for me for now I got to get some work done and pay the bills.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
You can dance and dodge all you want but that's the truth, you are wrong and I called you on it.

I'm surprised you didn't jump up and down and yell nanny-nanny-boo-boo after saying that.

I think it's self evident that "Just think of all those poor lemming who are even paying money to see and believe Mikey Moore's F9/11" is a partisan statement. Moore's movie is definitely partisan, no question about it. But so is a blanket attack on anyone who saw the movie and agreed with the ideas in it. I should not have to spell this out, it's like explaining that water is wet.

It's like you're claiming that "the Democratic party is full of lemmings" isn't a partisan statement, or "liberals are lemmings" isn't a partisan statement. David is correct, your statement was insulting to anyone who saw the movie, but it's still partisan, since it's well understood that F911 is a political movie with a definite viewpoint.

So far, 10 out of 11 people who seriously answered Kazim's poll agree that your posts are offensive and partisan. 11 out of 11 agree they're partisan. Do you finally understand now that you aren't actually fooling anyone, and you can drop the act?

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

So far, 10 out of 11 people who seriously answered Kazim's poll agree that your posts are offensive and partisan. 11 out of 11 agree they're partisan. Do you finally understand now that you aren't actually fooling anyone, and you can drop the act?


there was no choice --
"Life is too short to read its drivel and I figured that out months ago"


-j
....serious poll responder
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well that's almost correct and true, but not quite. In order to get the real correct and true meaning of the particular post in question, you need to read the post I was responding to first.

Post I responded to:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=


Yep, Charlie used the term "lemmings". Used it in refering to a piece he was familiar with, and which has been proven to be false.

Post in question:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=21117265


And here you use it in refering to a movie which you are not familiar with, which has not been proven false, and which you use derogatory language toward.

As for the "clarification", I thought your first post was quite clear; the "clarification" seemed more like backpedeling. Perhaps you picked the wrong words for your first post (although I'll give you a hint: Anytime you use a childish version of someone's name, rather than their proper name as they use it, it will come across as insulting), but if that is the case, you shouldn't be upset if someone takes that post as being insulting.


Here's something that may clarify it. Suppose that, instead of your post, Kazim had replied to Charlie with the comment:
"Just think of all those poor lemming who watch Fox News and believe what they hear". Would you consider that the least bit insulting to those who watch Fox?

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Here's something that may clarify it. Suppose that, instead of your post, Kazim had replied to Charlie with the comment:
"Just think of all those poor lemming who watch Fox News and believe what they hear". Would you consider that the least bit insulting to those who watch Fox?


insulting to Lemmings...... a noble race of Rodents.... cousins of Squirrel.


-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
David, I'm surprised, I had not thought of you as one of the Lemmings until this remark:

And here you use it in refering to a movie which you are not familiar with, which has not been proven false, and which you use derogatory language toward.

"which has not been proven false" Give me a COSTCO sized break! Pull your head out boy.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"which has not been proven false" Give me a COSTCO sized break! Pull your head out boy.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

ES

From your link: “Hollywood tried its hand at 'message films' following World War II, but quickly discovered that 'Most people do not go to the movies to have their consciences disturbed.'”

Interesting. He must not mean Reefer Madness or Come, Fill the Cup, both propaanda films, one abut the evils of marijuana addiciton and the other about the evils of alcohol.

Later, “The film also implies that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unjust.”

I haven't seen the film. (Waiting for the $1 matinees. Actually waiting for the DVD.) I do see a difference in the Afghanistan “war” and the Iraq one. I think most people do. In Afghanistan, the US fought mostly by proxy, using Afghanis to do the heavy lifting. Of course the relatively weak central government there made it easier. Iraq would have been very difficult to fight by proxy. We also had a relatively clear link between the Afghan government and Al Qaeda, which does/did not obtain in Iraq. We also had the active support of our major allies, including sending troops and war planes.

To me the Iraq situation isn't so much unjust as bone-headed. Our leadership expected to be greeted with parades and to be showered with flowers. That shows a gross lack of understanding of the situation. We are now “stuck” with an intractable situation. Osama bin Laden must be more than pleased with the turn of events there. As my dad used to say, “We hit him right in the fist with our nose.” Is that what Moore is saying? I suppose I need to see it.

“It's also an attempt to reduce George Bush's chances at re-election.” What can one say? Doh!

“NPR's Scott Simon wrote, 'Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't'”

Well, you can't believe those liberal pinko commies in NPR, now can you?

The well-known liberal mediun rag, the Los Angeles Times is quoted as saying “Fahrenheit … appears to be wielding less influence among potential voters than the filmmaker and his supporters might have hoped.”

I don't know who this Dr. Kelton Rhoads is. I would bet a donut he hails from some right-wing think tank. Any takers?

I was challenged by a friend on the subject of John Kerry's purple hearts. The friend had been picking up right-wing radio to the effect that the medals were actually requested by Kerry himself, as in he filled out the paperwork. I did a Google search, and I found two types of data. The one, from the Kerry-bashers, screaming that he hardly (or in fact does not) deserve to breathe, let alone get credit for his medals. The other from the fervent Kerry supporters, with a 180-degree opinion from the bashers. This merely illustrates that one can find opinions to support your contention, but it is difficult to find unbiased observations. In reading the Kerry stuff, I came away felling that they were giving out purple hearts like party favors, and Kerry did ask to be given the first one, like “everyone else”. Where's the horror?

I'm not willing to dig into the Moore film to find my own position. I am just saying that each party uses hired guns to advance their positions. Sadly, this does not really benefit the country, does it?

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't know who this Dr. Kelton Rhoads is. I would bet a donut he hails from some right-wing think tank. Any takers?

Yep. He is adjuct faculty at USC and the director of a group called "Working Psychology." His area of expertise is influence, and propoganda is a way of wielding influence.

I couldn't find any evidence that he is part of a right wing conspiracy. Most of his work seems to be in advertising, public relations, cult awareness, etc.

Randall
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not willing to dig into the Moore film to find my own position. I am just saying that each party uses hired guns to advance their positions. Sadly, this does not really benefit the country, does it?

I agree completely cliff and I don't know who this Dr. Kelton Rhoads is either. I did read his article and found it to be detailed and well written, all his claims have footnote with the supporting backup. And, I'm not betting against you about whether or not he hails from some right-wing think tank either. But I don't see where that's a problem as long as his article is factual and accurate. Even though I haven't seen the movie yet I have a hard time seeing how the article could be fiction, but I guess I won't know for sure until I do see the film.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"which has not been proven false" Give me a COSTCO sized break! Pull your head out boy.

Well, I'm sure that there are parts that are false. And I'm sure that there are parts that are true. And I never once said that it was not slanted; I think we all know that.

Like you, I have not seen the film. Unlike you, I will not cast an overall insult on those whose views of the film differ from what my general feelings are; since I have not seen the film, I do not feel qualified to comment on the overall message.

Your link points out that the movie is propoganda. No kidding. (actually, what surprised me is his comment that there is some argument about this point; I thought it was pretty clear that it is intended as propoganda, and nothing I have heard makes me think that I was wrong in that thought).
But, your link uses some of the same tactics that it accuses Moore of using. For example, he cites several things where Moore pulls something out of context, the idea being that we will jump to a conclusion, and that in these cases, the conslusion we are led to is false. The way he words it could easily lead one to believe that the whole movie is false, even though he doesn't say so.
And some of the ommissions that Moore made, when the context is added, doesn't change the effect (such as the laughter about Rice saying there is a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11; her "connection" itself (that was edited out) is laughable).

In the context section, the implication is apparently made in the movie that civilians were harmed by US bombing. Your link points this out as propoganda, but can you truely say that it has been proven that there were not civilians hurt? (this could go back to the "ommission" idea of propoganda; what's the latest tally of civilian deaths caused by the US that has been released by the government?)

Your link is interesting, and goes into detail of the movie that I was not familiar with (not having seen it). It does not, however, prove that everything, or even most of the things, said in the movie are false.
Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, even after reading your link, the movie, when taken as a whole, has not been proven to be basically false.
Heck, it hasn't even been shown to be more misleading that the Bush administration (although I certainly won't argue that it's not).

Oh, one other point. The author criticizes Moore for not showing the airplanes crashing into the WTC. I did hear something about this before the movie was released. The feeling was that everyone not only has seen that, but has it burned into their memory. Showing it on the screen would serve no purpose but to upset people. I don't think that even a propogandist much better than Moore could get around the fact that the people who flew into the WTC were committing a major act of evil. There really was no reason to show that, and plenty of reason not to.


BTW, I'm still curious to hear your views on the PATRIOT ACT, in regards to your stated preference of freedom over security. Perhaps you could throw in your feelings about trucks being randomly stopped and searched (without a warrant).

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

what's the latest tally of civilian deaths caused by the US that has been released by the government?


zero.

(FYI)


-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
what's the latest tally of civilian deaths caused by the US that has been released by the government?


zero.


Is that for real? I didn't think that they had released any numbers (just ignoring the deaths, rather than denying them).


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

what's the latest tally of civilian deaths caused by the US that has been released by the government?


zero.


Is that for real? I didn't think that they had released any numbers (just ignoring the deaths, rather than denying them).


you're correct.
if the govt is keeping track, they aren't saying anything....


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BTW, I'm still curious to hear your views on the PATRIOT ACT, in regards to your stated preference of freedom over security. Perhaps you could throw in your feelings about trucks being randomly stopped and searched (without a warrant).

I don't know enough about it yet to have much comment. If you're wondering how I fell about random searching of trucks, it's OK with me.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

you're correct.
if the govt is keeping track, they aren't saying anything....


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


-j





Well hell's bells! Rummy can't even keep track of how many AMERICANS this administration has killed. Now you expect him to tally up Iraqis?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know enough about it yet to have much comment. If you're wondering how I fell about random searching of trucks, it's OK with me.

Fair enough.


I have to say that I'm of mixed feelings on the random searches. I can see that there is a chance that it would decrease the chances of an attack, but it's certainly inconvenient, and I don't know if the costs are justified. There's also the fact that commercial transactions (whether speech, transport, whatever) are due less privacy and protection than private transactions.
I thought of this one because they are now stopping trucks like crazy; on Rts 4, 46, and 17; because these roads lead to the George Washington Bridge. They've stopped over 1000 trucks this week; no idea how many have not been stopped. The odd thing is that 17 doesn't go anywhere near the bridge. (No reports of them stopping trucks on the turnpike, which probably carries 5 times as many trucks as those other highways combined). Makes me think that this is really more effective at making people think that they are safer than it is in really stopping any attack.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well hell's bells! Rummy can't even keep track of how many AMERICANS this administration has killed. Now you expect him to tally up Iraqis?

We don't need as exact number. Rounded to the nearest 1000 would be fine. But we don't even get that.

David

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have to say that I'm of mixed feelings on the random searches. I can see that there is a chance that it would decrease the chances of an attack, but it's certainly inconvenient, and I don't know if the costs are justified.

I thought the same thing, but then I also thought about how much damage could be done with a truckload of fertilizer & kerosene and then decided I could stand the inconvenience.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I thought the same thing, but then I also thought about how much damage could be done with a truckload of fertilizer & kerosene and then decided I could stand the inconvenience.

Yupp.


Odd thing is though (and this may be in part because I read a NJ newspaper), it seems as if all the checking is limited to trucks heading into NYC. From what I've heard, if a truck was loaded up in NY and driven over the bridge, there's no checking, other than the requirement that commercial vehicles use the upper level (a bomb going off there would do much less damage, as the blast would not be contained).

So I have to wonder how much of it is "look-good" policing, and how much is actual deterent. Of course, there's no way to measure.


Different question: How do you feel about US citizens being detained at Gitmo, without trial or access to a lawyer?

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Different question: How do you feel about US citizens being detained at Gitmo, without trial or access to a lawyer?

It's not legal is it? I think it's wrong, any citizen should get due process. Illegal combatants are a different story IMO.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I'm sure that there are parts that are false. And I'm sure that there are parts that are true.

What parts do you think are true? From what I've read, there are no truly accrate points made, so even if there were a true "spot" it appears to be compromised by Moore's twisting of the details.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's not legal is it? I think it's wrong, any citizen should get due process

I agree. It's a basic part of our Constitution. It's also one of the biggest problems I have with Bush, since he disagrees.

Illegal combatants are a different story IMO.

Well, that's how Bush gets around it. Basically, he feels that if a person is accussed with a bad enough crime, he loses his rights. Yes, that's US citizens.
The non-citizens are obviously not afforded the rights of the Constitution, although I think it would then be appropriate to treat them according to the Geneva Convention (even though they are not strictly covered; I would prefer to see the US err on the humanitarian side in regards to treatment. Doesn't mean let them go, just treat them well).

I can hardly wait for the SCOTUS to finally rule on this case. Don't know why it's taking so long.

Oh, and one other point. When the case first went to the SC, I heard an interview (I think with Rummy, but not positive) where the question was asked "Why not give this citizen a trial"
The answer was along the lines of "If we give him a trial, he'll have a lawyer, and he'll end up getting out of it and going free." Which sounds to me suspiciously like "We don't actually have any evidence, but we need someone as a scapegoat." Personally, I feel the guy is quite likely guilty; but I don't see why that can't be determined by a court. After all, it worked for McVeigh.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What parts do you think are true? From what I've read, there are no truly accrate points made, so even if there were a true "spot" it appears to be compromised by Moore's twisting of the details.

As I stated, I've not seen the movie. So I can't comment on specific parts of it, because I don't know them.

But even the link that you provided makes it sound as if parts are true, even if not in the way that many people would interpret them (such as the fact that there have been Iraqi civilians killed by US bombs).

Also, as I understand it, there are many clips of GWB talking. Unless there is some computer manipulation, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Bush actually said these things. True, the surrounding context probably leads many people to draw a conclusion that Moore wants them to draw, but that doesn't mean that Bush didn't say these things. (Don't know if they're in the movie or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are things like Bush stating "The thread from Iraq is imminent" or "We have evidence of stockpiles of WMDs".
Of course, I guess whether or not you consider this accurate is how you look at it. Yes, they are lies, but it is true that Bush said them (or something very close; I don't have the direct quotes).

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, that's how Bush gets around it. Basically, he feels that if a person is accussed with a bad enough crime, he loses his rights. Yes, that's US citizens.

What case or who are you talking about? I'm not aware of any US citizen that is being held as you describe.

Oh, and one other point. When the case first went to the SC, I heard an interview (I think with Rummy, but not positive) where the question was asked "Why not give this citizen a trial"

What case is this? I've not heard anything about it.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But even the link that you provided makes it sound as if parts are true, even if not in the way that many people would interpret them (such as the fact that there have been Iraqi civilians killed by US bombs).

Also, as I understand it, there are many clips of GWB talking. Unless there is some computer manipulation, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Bush actually said these things. True, the surrounding context probably leads many people to draw a conclusion that Moore wants them to draw, but that doesn't mean that Bush didn't say these things. (Don't know if they're in the movie or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are things like Bush stating "The thread from Iraq is imminent" or "We have evidence of stockpiles of WMDs".


As you point out, there were a number of cases pointed out in the link where Moore used actual words or parts of sentences that GW had spoken and then associated them with two or three things that are not related to or associated with. I my world that is a lie on Moore's part, even if GW actually spoke the words Moore used, because Moore took those words and used a number of propaganda techniques to trick the audience and public into thinking something happened that really didn't. I would be really surprised if you really wanted to go down that road.

In my opinion, lies are more realted to intent than content and to me Moore is a lier of the worst kind. He seems to think that any lie any means justify his purposes.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What case or who are you talking about? I'm not aware of any US citizen that is being held as you describe.

There are at least two; Jose Padilla being the one that is the subject of the SC case. He was arrested in Chicago, on grounds of conspiracy to commit terrorism (but without charges).
There is also Mohammed Hamdi (sp?), who was arrested in Pakistan, and eventually deported back to the US, although I'm not sure if he is in Gitmo or not, but he is being held as an "enemy combatant".

I'm really surprised that you haven't heard about this. It's been pretty big in the news off and on for some time (maybe not on Fox, though). Here's some info from CNN that will give you some backgroud.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/27/detainees/


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I my world that is a lie on Moore's part, even if GW actually spoke the words Moore used, because Moore took those words and used a number of propaganda techniques to trick the audience and public into thinking something happened that really didn't. I would be really surprised if you really wanted to go down that road.

So, you haven't seen the movie either, yet you're willing to say that everything in it is a lie; and you call me a lemming? Heck, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But at least by your definition of lying it makes it quite clear that Bush has lied a great deal. Much of his wording was created to make people think that Iraq was behind 9/11; and it worked on a great deal of people, even though the evidence points otherwise.

In my opinion, lies are more realted to intent than content and to me Moore is a lier of the worst kind. He seems to think that any lie any means justify his purposes.

Have you seen any Moore movies? Or are you just repeating what you have heard second-hand?


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

There are at least two; Jose Padilla being the one that is the subject of the SC case. He was arrested in Chicago, on grounds of conspiracy to commit terrorism (but without charges).
There is also Mohammed Hamdi (sp?), who was arrested in Pakistan, and eventually deported back to the US, although I'm not sure if he is in Gitmo or not, but he is being held as an "enemy combatant".


both are in So.Carolina....

i was confused because cases have been 'decided' by SC

here's a long but interesting analysis of the Court's decisions
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17293



-j
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I my world that is a lie on Moore's part, even if GW actually spoke the words Moore used, because Moore took those words and used a number of propaganda techniques to trick the audience and public into thinking something happened that really didn't. I would be really surprised if you really wanted to go down that road.

So, you haven't seen the movie either, yet you're willing to say that everything in it is a lie; and you call me a lemming? Heck, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
------------------------------------------------------------------

<rolling eyes>

This is getting a bit silly. Both of you go see the film, and then have this debate. Heck, I'll even spring for it. Just let me know where to send the check.***


Charlie


***Offer is only good for dcarper and ES. Sorry folks. :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
i was confused because cases have been 'decided' by SC

Thanks for the update. June 28 was just about the time I started dealing with buying a house (we close next Tuesday; I'm supposed to be packing right now); I've not followed the news as closely as I normally do. Sorry for the confusion.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As I stated, I've not seen the movie. So I can't comment on specific parts of it, because I don't know them.

I have seen the movie, David, and to me the most damaging aspect of the movie to Bush was the deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush's face when told that the second World Trade Center had been hit and he just sat there for minutes and minutes and continued with his scripted event.

This segment, IMO, proves that Bush needs to be told what to do and, therefore, should not be President in these perilous times.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

This segment, IMO, proves that Bush needs to be told what to do and, therefore, should not be President in these perilous times.





He shouldn't be president in secure times either.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm really surprised that you haven't heard about this. It's been pretty big in the news off and on for some time (maybe not on Fox, though).

If it was big news between the first part of March until the end on June, I didn't have time to watch or read much of anything. I moved my business as of April 1 and the getting ready to move, moving and then cleaning up the old place for the new owners was a nightmare. I really didn't get it all done until the end of June and since then life if gradually getting to be more normal...for me anwyway.

I'll have to read up on those guys, I really haven't even heard of them before.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Have you seen any Moore movies? Or are you just repeating what you have heard second-hand?

Since you haven't seen it either why are you defending Moore?

I'm basing my opinion of him and his movie from the things I've read, like Dr. Rhoads paper and the things I heard him say, like when he and O'Reilly went at it during the DNC when O'Reilly cornered him. Moore was a joke, he wouldn't answer any questions all he could do was try and change the subject in order to try deflect attention away from his lies. If he was telling the truth, he would answer the straight questions with strait answers, he didn't because he couldn't. He was caught in his lies and all he could do was try and dance around them.

ES

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have seen the movie, David, and to me the most damaging aspect of the movie to Bush was the deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush's face when told that the second World Trade Center had been hit and he just sat there for minutes and minutes and continued with his scripted event.

This segment, IMO, proves that Bush needs to be told what to do and, therefore, should not be President in these perilous times.


Oh BS, it wouldn't have mattered what GW had done then, you and Moore would be critical. What he did, was just what he sould have done, stay calm so he didn't frighten the children, then wait until he had enough information to decide what to do next.

By your standards, Kerry is a real dolt, he sat stupified for 45 minutes and couldn't even move until the Secret Service came and told them to evacuate. Even Teresa Heinz says Bush did the right thing.

ES

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10

Oh BS, it wouldn't have mattered what GW had done then, you and Moore would be critical. What he did, was just what he sould have done, stay calm so he didn't frighten the children, then wait until he had enough information to decide what to do next.





Bwahahahahahahaha!
Bush didn't "decide" anything.
It was all taken care of for him by others -- while he followed along in a second-grade reader where he belonged.

With the exception that, since the terrorists were after him, too, he endangered those children by remaining there.

This is, without doubt, the most ignorant and stupid human being we have ever had for president of the United States. These traits are so painfully obvious to anyone (with a working brain) who has ever tried to listen to him attempt to speak.

Didn't he just say the other day that the terrorists never stop looking for ways to harm this country -- and neither does he.

Does this sound like words that would come from a thinking person?

Face it, your boy is an idiot. You can paint it whatever color you want to paint it. He's still an idiot. Nothing you can say will ever change it. He'd rather be playing video games on his "ranch" in Texas. And I, for one, think we should do the little Alfred E. Newman a favor and send him back there for some permanent R&R. Maybe he could catch up on his second-grade primer reading.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
AM,

You hate GW so much it wouldn't matter what he did or didn't do, to you it would be wrong. Your emotions have control when it comes to George W Bush so everything he does adds to your hatred.

I used to see Bill Clinton in the same way so I understand why you say what you do. To me everything Clinton did was slimy and disgusting because he was such a creep.

I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country. I don't think it's a good thing at all and I don't know what I can do about it either, so I'm concerned.

ES

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 77
AM,

You hate GW so much it wouldn't matter what he did or didn't do, to you it would be wrong. Your emotions have control when it comes to George W Bush so everything he does adds to your hatred.

I used to see Bill Clinton in the same way so I understand why you say what you do. To me everything Clinton did was slimy and disgusting because he was such a creep.

I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country. I don't think it's a good thing at all and I don't know what I can do about it either, so I'm concerned.

ES




ES,
My personal feelings for Bush have no bearing whatsoever on his mental ability. The man is just flat-out ignorant, not in the least curious about the world, and therefore appears to be stupid in the extreme.

My personal feelings for Bush have no bearing whatsoever on the things he has done and tried to do which are harming this country. Whether I loved him or hated him, those things would remain the same.

The polarization that is afoot in this country is because the two "sides" have completely different visions for what the United States of America should be. Some of us care about equal rights for everyone. Some care about filling their pockets with as much money as they can as they step over the poor and hungry on their way to the bank. The polarization has occurred because Bush is taking us (if he can be said to lead at all) in the exact opposite direction that at least half the population wants the nation to go.

These things have nothing to do with my personal feelings for Bush.
The fact that he "served" in Alabama on his daddy's buddy's political campaign during Viet Nam while brave men were in the direct line of fire is not changed by my personal view of Bush. The fact that this man is a Deer-In-The-Headlights is not in any way affected by my personal feelings for him.

It is true that I cannot stand the little toad. But my dislike is based upon what he is and what he has done. Not the other way around. You may have felt that everything Clinton did was slimy because he was a "creep" -- but I feel that Bush is a creep because of the slimy things he has done. Big difference, buddy.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country. I don't think it's a good thing at all and I don't know what I can do about it either, so I'm concerned.

ES


I've gotten over my own Clinton hate by looking back at what he actually did as president.

I supported GWB right up until the time he decided to invade Iraq.

Every time he or his administration gave a reason for the invasion, it wasn't true, and I posted as much at the time. History has shown that I was right, or, I should say, the experts were right, each and every time.

The guy just wanted to invade Iraq, that's all. His administration has admitted that his reasons were invalid and, in the case of the "imminent threat" statements, have actually tried to say they never said that. (!) What other reason would there be to invade another country??

What I wanted, and what I thought this administration wanted, was to go after the perpetrators of 911. Instead, that group has flourished. In fact, everything the president has done since 911 has had the opposite outcome of the predicted result.

Now, I ask ya, if you had an employee in your business and everything he tried to do cause the opposite outcome than was hoped for, how long would that employee be in your employment?

More than four years?

k
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country. I don't think it's a good thing at all and I don't know what I can do about it either, so I'm concerned.

It's not hard to see what the problems are that are causing the polarization. Take any hot button issue you like, President Bush has taken, not small steps, but leaps in a direction that his opposition...well...opposes (as the opposition is want to do).

Is the polarization good? I don't know. Probably you're right. Probably it's not. Things might be a bit better today if the anti-clinton corp had not been so rabid. Of course, Gore might be President today if that were true.

But does that mean that the anti-bush corp should calm down a bit? Maybe, maybe not. But I think they (we) have calmed down. For President, we've chosen a reasonable, thoughtful, experienced man who's politics is well within the pre-Bush2 centrist ideological structure. Left of center certainly, but centrist none-the-less.

What you can do about ameliorating the polarization is to vote for Kerry in November. He doesn't represent all of your political positions, but he doesn't represent all of mine either. If you want the end of polarization, vote against the Radcon agenda. It is the take-no-prisoners, never-compromise ideology that is causing the fracture.

l1soul.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

The polarization that is afoot in this country is because the two "sides" have completely different visions for what the United States of America should be.


judging from our young friends on PA.... it's much deeper than that --
not just "should be" but "was" and "is"....

as if each grew up in different worlds, reading different history books.

and each has different 'Fair and unbalanced' news sources reporting entirely
different .facts.

It is true that I cannot stand the little toad. But my dislike is based upon what he is and what he has done. Not the other way around. You may have felt that everything Clinton did was slimy because he was a "creep" -- but I feel that Bush is a creep because of the slimy things he has done. Big difference, buddy.



-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The polarization that is afoot in this country is because the two "sides" have completely different visions for what the United States of America should be.



There is a sharp polarization. It is encouraged by comments like "we are in a cultural war," or "we must protecting marriage," or "if you aren't for us, you're against us." ES according to the snip in AM's post is complaining about it, yet encourages it at the same time(his posts on Michael Moore and other issues here). So his questioning of polarization rings false to me.

I don't hate the president. I hate what I feel he has done to this country, and the world. Our allies wonder about us. Our enemies have reached into our souls. We are in an agitated state, and so we leap on anything we can, and pull each other apart.

The way to move past to polarization is to actually listen to what we are saying to each other, and to stop shouting at each other. We need to get away from sound bites, and really focus on the issues. Sadly, we won't.

Charlie



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I moved my business as of April 1 and the getting ready to move, moving and then cleaning up the old place for the new owners was a nightmare.

Ah, being in the middle of a move is certainly a reason I can identify with. ;-)


I would be interested in hearing your opinion after you read up on them, but take your time.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since you haven't seen it either why are you defending Moore?

For the same reason that I would defend you against an attack like the one you are on. Nobody is perfect, and nobody is completely wrong on everything. Heck, there are things that Bush has done that I think are great, even though on the average, I think he is a lousy president.

Listen to what you are saying. You are arguing that every single word the man has ever said is a complete lie. I'm arguing that there is almost certainly something true somewhere in what he says. I'm not saying that all is true, or even most is true.

Basically, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt; even someone like Moore or you. Now, if you had seen the movie, and still claimed that everything in it was a total complete lie, with no shred of truth whatsoever, I would probably be doubtful, and ask for more details. But I would be much more willing to accept that assessment than I am from someone that has never seen a single Moore film.

I'm basing my opinion of him and his movie from the things I've read, like Dr. Rhoads paper and the things I heard him say, like when he and O'Reilly went at it during the DNC when O'Reilly cornered him.

So your entire assessment of the film is based on second hand information. There is some second hand info that is pro-Moore; why do you only consider that which is against him (and like I stated previously, the Rhoades link which you provided does not indicate that everything in the movie is deceitful; in fact, the report uses careful propoganda techniques, just as he accuses Moore of doing.)

like when he and O'Reilly went at it during the DNC when O'Reilly cornered him. Moore was a joke, he wouldn't answer any questions all he could do was try and change the subject in order to try deflect attention away from his lies.

In other words, pretty much like any politician when caught off guard, and questioned about things that he hasn't rehearsed, right? I've seen plenty of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, when caught off guard never answer the question.
Of course, saying that Moore is just as good as a politician is, I'll admit, damning with faint praise. ;-)


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Oh BS, it wouldn't have mattered what GW had done then, you and Moore would be critical. What he did, was just what he sould have done, stay calm so he didn't frighten the children, then wait until he had enough information to decide what to do next.

In part, I agree with you. We can't know what was whispered in his ear. But from the footage I saw (on CNN, not in Moore's film), it did not appear that Bush was being very aggressive in finding out more information.
But perhaps he was told everything that was known within those few seconds, including that, even though his location was well known, there was no possible way that terrorists could target him.


To me, what is more telling is the fact that Bush wanted to go back to the White House directly, even though there was already procedure for such a situation. He had to be considered a target; the proper thing to do was to shuttle him off to somewhere else, where the terrorists would not be able to target him, but he would have access to the information he needed. This is what was done, but from everything I've heard, Bush had to be argued down first.

I'm personally not at all bothered about Bush's actions regarding terrorism prior to 9/11. Most of the things that people argue should have been done would not have been accepted by the American people, regardless of who was president, until there was an attack. I'm not even that critical of Bush's reactions on the day. It's the followup after he had plenty of time to think and gather information that bothers me.


David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country. I don't think it's a good thing at all and I don't know what I can do about it either, so I'm concerned.

I think a lot of it goes back to Gingrich and his "Contract on America". Prior to that, there was a fair amount of compromise between the sides; Gingrich was the first person that important, at least in my lifetime, to push so hard for total partisanship.
Heck, even Dole was much better; when he said about the democrats "They are not our enemy, they are our opponent". Gingrich seemed to think of the other side as the enemy (and to some extent, the American people as well). Sadly, it worked to some extent, and I think that both parties are now playing along with the idea, and it's affecting the general population.

David
(still pissed at Gingrich for screwing up my vacation)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In fact, everything the president has done since 911 has had the opposite outcome of the predicted result.

You mean that the outcome has been opposite of what the president said was the predicted result.

Overall, I think that this board did a pretty good job of predicting.


(I thought of that during the news the other day; after three stories of people kidnapped and/or killed in Iraq, there was a report from Bush, where he was talking about how terrorism has diminished. This type of thing is exactly what many of us predicted before we even invaded)

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You mean that the outcome has been opposite of what the president said was the predicted result.

Yeah. :o)

Overall, I think that this board did a pretty good job of predicting.

It wasn't that difficult. At least it shouldn't have been.

There was so much animosity between the administration and the CIA and State Department because those agencies wouldn't back up Bush's claims there was even a book written about it. Our own intelligence wouldn't back up the misinformation and were accused of fighting against the war on terror. Al Qaeda-Saddam connection, WMD programs, imminent threat to the US- they wouldn't back up the president. Of course, now it's their fault. :o)

Also, the Iraqi's saw us as the grand supporter of their dictator. We supported Saddam as we do Israel. Why would those people suddenly believe we were going to help them out of the kindness of our hearts? Of course, according to the rhetoric, it was almost as though we'd just recently heard about Saddam's atrocities and were going to stop him. Americans that didn't know the history believed that. Not many in the rest of the world could. Of course they weren't going to welcome us with open arms.

I think that's my problem with understanding the other side of the issue. It seems so transparent to me that they're backing the wrong pony- one that depends on our ignorance to do what he wants.

I try to see the other side of the issues and this stuff is what keeps me from doing so. Intellectually, I know they probably feel the same way for other "perfectly transparent" reasons of their own, but I can't see them.

I wish someone could settle these issues for me once and for all.

k (hates being so far on one side of the issue but can't help it)




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is true that I cannot stand the little toad.

You keep referring to Mr. Bush as "little". The man is over 6 feet tall.

cliff
... trivia collector
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In fact, everything the president has done since 911 has had the opposite outcome of the predicted result.

I have a theory that one can predict the effect of almost any given law enacted by congress. Just read the title. The effect will be the exact opposite. The war on poverty gave us more poverty. The war on drugs gave us more drugs, more drug lords, and more drug dealers. Only things involving construction seem to work out. We successfully made the Interstate highway system. TVA was successfully completed. The Man on the Moon project was successful.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

It is true that I cannot stand the little toad.

You keep referring to Mr. Bush as "little". The man is over 6 feet tall.


surprising....

short for a Texican.


-b
........ he has a tiny tiny soul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have a theory that one can predict the effect of almost any given law enacted by congress. Just read the title. The effect will be the exact opposite.

You're on to something.

I'm struggling with the new "Simplified Sales Tax."

Having a single place of business I used to total up my blind sales and the materials I used for carpet jobs, multiply by .066 and send it in.

With the simplified tax I have to subtotal everything by the ZIP code where the goods are delivered and calculte the tax based on the rate at the destination.

Oh. They will accept a 5-digit ZIP but they want ZIP+4.

Randall
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
cliff: You keep referring to Mr. Bush as "little". The man is over 6 feet tall.

Bush Sr is 6'-2", and Dubya is 5'-11", according to google.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You keep referring to Mr. Bush as "little". The man is over 6 feet tall.

Ya, but don't forget, AM isn't the least bit emotional about GW.

ES

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is true that I cannot stand the little toad. But my dislike is based upon what he is and what he has done. Not the other way around. You may have felt that everything Clinton did was slimy because he was a "creep" -- but I feel that Bush is a creep because of the slimy things he has done. Big difference, buddy.

No difference, sister. Clinton was and still is a creep because of the creepy things he did. You can twist my words all you want but it's the same thing. You see GW like I see Clinton, the only difference is that I'm over Clinton, you on the other hand are still all warped about GW.

ES
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
<<you on the other hand are still all warped about GW.>>


The instant he's no longer president, I'll get over him real fast.


-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I've been able to get over my Clinton hate and now I'm wondering what is causing this extreme poloriztion that's evident right now in our country.

Because you have been able to get over your hatred for Clinton, now we should immediately get over our Bush hatred? You are wondering about this polarization now that you've gotten over yours??

Get real!! For most of us, your Clinton hate has nothing to do with our feelings about this administration...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 141
No difference, sister. Clinton was and still is a creep because of the creepy things he did. You can twist my words all you want but it's the same thing. You see GW like I see Clinton, the only difference is that I'm over Clinton, you on the other hand are still all warped about GW.

Huge difference, brother.

Clinton didn't drop cluster bombs on Iraq, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis in an effort to get control of their oil fields.

Clinton didn't bankrupt this nation in order to give tax breaks to the people least in need of help in this nation, and most able to provide help to those in need.

Clinton didn't destroy our relationship with long-standing allies with bravado displays of arrogance and military might.

Clinton didn't preside over the net loss of more than a million jobs during his term in office.

Clinton didn't attempt to stifle research into life-saving technologies in order to placate his fanatic Christian base.

Clinton didn't plan a war and fail to plan its aftermath. Nor did he destroy a sovereign nation and then turn it over to a puppet government, the intended leaders of which couldn't be, in the end, given the power they had been promised and are now under indictment for murder and theft on a grand scale.

Clinton didn't hire corporations connected to his vice-president on the basis of no-bid contracts only have America discover later that they were cheating the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars.

Clinton didn't reduce veteran benefits at the same time he is creating masses of disabled veterans who now cannot afford the medical care they'll need for the rest of their lives because of the greed and callousness of a few very rich people.

Clinton committed a sexual indiscretion -- as statistics indicate a vast majority of American men do. It was a personal matter. No one died because of it. But you would equate a sexual indiscretion with the destruction of the American economy and the decimation of the American middle class, with the premeditated murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis with billions of dollars to be distributed to the well-connected as the motive, with lies about the reliability and morality of the scientific community and insistence on a fundamentalist Christian view of family planning resulting in millions of people dying of AIDS than is necessary, with promoting a health care system in which 40% of the population cannot get adequate care because it's too expensive, with writing a prescription drug bill for seniors which gives billions to the pharmaceutical companies and actually makes live-saving drugs MORE UNAFFORDABLE for many seniors, for raping the environment for corporate profit, and for eliciting in half of the American population a revulsion for the presidency never known before in this nation.

You think that your (now-cured) revulsion for Clinton's little sexcapade is equivalent to our revulsion towards this war criminal cum imbecile? This puppet of a ruthless ideological cadre bent on American world domination through the control of the world's oil supply -- a cadre which wrote as much in their original PNAC documents, only to remove the originals from their website once they began to be noticed after 9/11? This incompetent group of individuals who actually thought they could impose upon another culture with a wholly different religion ways which are anathema to them, and that roses would be thrown as a consequence, rather than rocket-launched grenades? This smarmy collection of reflexive liars who, when confronted with a fact -- the non-existence of WMD's in Iraq, for instance -- had the gall to say, "Oh, that's not why we went to Iraq. We went to Iraq to liberate the people?" This President who said he would track Osama bin Laden to the ends of the earth for his role in planning the murder of 3,000 Americans, but the second he could politically manage it, re-directed our efforts towards Iraqi oil fields? You think we hate Bush with less reason than you had for hating Clinton?

Then you have, I think, perhaps, a little hang-up on sex. Not to mention an insufficient understanding of the relative gravity of sexual indiscretions and the murder of thousands of innocent people for money and power.

JMO.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
Addendum.

We don't just hate Bush. That would be irrational. We hate his marionette-handlers, too, like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, Rice and so on. We also despise those who invented the neoconservative ideology which governs their actions: Leo Strauss and William Kristol.

You see, my deluded friend, it is not an irrational revulsion we feel. It is irrational not to feel revulsion for people who espouse a philosophy which maintains that the majority of mankind is too stupid to govern themselves, and, therefore, that lying to the population in a democratic society about the reason for war and the power of corporations is the only way to ensure the correct distribution of the world's wealth -- to -- guess whom? -- that's right -- the neo-con elite.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Clinton didn't drop cluster bombs on Iraq, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis in an effort to get control of their oil fields.

He used B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Oh. And this.

We're lucky as hell that these evil people are such unsurpassed screw-ups that they could never in a million years of trying achieve their vile goals. Like ideologues of virtually every stripe, their "philosophy" is so ill-considered as to fail to take into account one of the most basic of human truths: people don't want to be slaves.

The world will never allow the U.S. to assume total supremacy. They might have pulled it off surreptitiously, had they been possessed of brains capable of thinking beyond their greed for unlimited wealth and power, but, thankfully, they aren't.

They can, however, if re-elected, either incite civil war in this nation or nuclear war on a global scale. Neither of which they have ever considered as a possibility -- desirable or not. They have no idea what they may have unleashed with their reckless and fanatic quest for the corpogovernment of which they dream.

We hate them because they would as soon destroy the world as fail to rule it.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 34
He used B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.

NATO used B-1 bombers and cruise missles. NATO decided that the genocide in the Balkans must stop. Clinton was a leader capable of diplomacy, capable of reason, capable of making hard decisions in order to prevent greater injustice. How many U.S. soldiers died in the Balkans, Al? Is the murder rate there now greater or less than before we intervened? Did he act in order to secure the Balkans' natural resources for U.S. corporate interests? Did he act on a pre-existing plan to control the world, with the first step stated plainly in that plan to invade the Balkans? Did he yearn for a "Second Pearl Harbor" which would make it possible -- and did he state this plainly in documents outlining his plan -- to lie to the American people and frighten them sufficiently that they would permit him to seize another people's natural resources? Did he state plainly in now-secret documents that the purpose of invading the Balkans would be to establish American military control over the entire region and blackmail the rest of the world with control of a natural resource the entire world needs for its survival? Did he mention the need to force other governments to rescind their laws governing treatment of the environment and workers' rights as a major reason for seizing the Balkans' precious natural resource for purposes of blackmail?

Give me a friggin' break. I don't believe for a minute that you don't know about Leo Strauss and his neo-fascist ideology, William Kristol and his teaching of it to the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle. I don't for a moment believe that you don't know exactly what the war in Iraq was about -- and that it had nothing whatever to do with either terrorism or the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Unless, of course, you're not as bright as I've always thought you are and think it's just a coincidence that the neocons came to power, got their much-desired "Second Pearl Harbor" right on schedule, lied to the American people about WMD's, just as they said good neo-cons should do, and invaded Iraq right on schedule, despite the fact that the people who took out the twin towers were still hiding in caves in Afghanistan. Unless, of course, that you think it's just a coincidence that, upon invading Iraq, our first priority was to secure the oil fields and their offices. Unless, of course, you think it's just a coincidence that in the PNAC manifesto they listed Iran and Syria as the next targets of opportunity in their quest to control all of the Middle East, and -- lo and behold -- right after "mission accomplished," the next words out of their lying mouths were "Iran" and "Syria."

I think, Al, that you're either disingenuous as hell, or much less intelligent than I have always given you credit for being.

I think I know which it is, as well.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What a crock!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<She got surgery and takes hormones>>


Thorazine isn't a hormone.


-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
ES: What a crock!

It is always a pleasure to read such a closely reasoned, cogent post as this. It shows in great detail the profundity of thought of which the writher is capable. I stand mute with appreciation at how thes poster can so briefly experss his deepest feelings.

666
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ES: What a crock!

It is always a pleasure to read such a closely reasoned, cogent post as this. It shows in great detail the profundity of thought of which the writher is capable. I stand mute with appreciation at how thes poster can so briefly experss his deepest feelings.



Yup....no polarizing effect in his statement

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
AM,

ES is also being very sexist. Hard to believe he would chalk up political thought as hormones.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Hard to believe he would chalk up political thought as hormones.

Why? Isn't the point of this thread that he can't tell the difference between Clinton getting horny and Bush trampling over civil rights and running up record deficits?

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
sneakpuff: What a crock!
-----

Remember the Smothers Brothers bit where when Tommy was at a loss for words because everything Dick said made sense, his best comeback was, "Oh yeah?!".

The difference is Tommy was just acting moronic.




Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You hate them because you've been listening to your own dirvel.
You and AM sound like a lot like how my wife was about 15 years ago with her hormones really screwed up. Totally irrational. She got surgery and takes hormones, you ought to look into it too.
ES

-----

Ah, the last refuge of the debate challenged...argumentum ad hominem.




Rich
-wondering what 'dirvel' is?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What a crock!

Pithy.

How, exactly? What precisely have I said that you would argue against? What argument would you proffer? What evidence?

"What a crock?" That's it? How old are you, nine? Ten?

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...a cadre which wrote as much in their original PNAC documents, only to remove the originals from their website once they began to be noticed after 9/11?

SLL,

You've mentioned this before. While i'm inclined to believe you because the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz crew has shown a marked inclination toward world domination during their brief time in power this century, it would nevertheless be good to see the evidence.

Were these documents of legend archived somewhere by someone wanting to preserve the evil world domination plan for later scrutiny? Would make some interesting reading.

Thanks,

Bon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What a crock?" That's it? How old are you, nine? Ten?



Yes, he's ten. How else do you explain the out of control women's issue defense?

:-)Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Were these documents of legend archived somewhere by someone wanting to preserve the evil world domination plan for later scrutiny? Would make some interesting reading.

Some friends of mine have been searching for the since they disappeared from the PNAC website. That was in -- oh, around the end of 2001, beginning of 2002 -- it was at about the time when they started using the "Iraq WMD's" lie. I read it in the original form at the PNAC site. I have no doubt this material still exists somewhere, but I have strong doubts that we're going to get to see it again for a very long time. It was truly knock-your-socks-off horrifying. It was the first time I read that they believed it necessary to arrange for a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to jump-start the first step in the plan -- the invasion of Iraq and seizure of the oil fields there. Enough people read the original that the "New Pearl Habor" comment is fairly well-known, but the rest was as bad and worse The press was very careful not to make the original material available, even when they finally discovered it. All press commentary on the PNAC has presented the sanitized version.

The material currently on their site is the sanitized version, with lots of talk about saving the world from itself.

A good place to start to get a feeling for these people, however, would be reading the works of their guru, the revolting Leo Strauss. Also William Kristol. Both serve as the "intellectual justification" for a world to be ruled by one state -- America -- with the corporation as the beneficiary. It's a philosophy which essentially espouses government/military/corporate U.S. which, through control of the world's remaining energy stocks, will force all other nations to admit U.S. military bases, to rescind laws which restrict absolute freedom for corporations, and which will, essentially, rule the world by proxy from those military bases.

That's why they call it the "Project for a New American Century." I believe it was Strauss, but it could have been Kristol, who said essentially that it is inevitable that there will be one world government at some point, and that we must begin now to make certain its an American world government and that the integrated world economic system must be unregulated capitalism. Those are the kinds of "intellectual" foundations on which they erected their "project." The project itself was laid out in much less delicate turns of phrase. The people should never be told the truth, they said, about what is in store for them. They should be frightened into granting the rescinding of their civil and human rights, because masses with civil rights won't consent to, for want of a better word, global oligarchy. According to these bastards, most people aren't capable of self-governance, and must be led, like sheep, to do the work corporations require in order for the world's "worthy" to live well and comfortably.

It's fascism by another name and a pseudo-intellectual ideology which purports to have the best interests of the world at heart. It's best for people, they believe, to labor for the privileges and rights of their betters -- their masters -- because without masters, the world will fall into decline, and everyone will starve, or erupt in total war and everyone will die. They see neoconservatism (neo-fascism) as the only way to save the world. Rather, they pretend to.

If you find this original material anywhere, Bon, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know. I was STUPID not to have made a copy at the time and saved it. It was OBVIOUS from the material that they couldn't let it get widespread publicity. I couldn't even figure out why they would put it on a website to begin with, except for the fact that before 9/11 no one had ever heard of the PNAC.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
and each has different 'Fair and unbalanced' news sources reporting entirely different facts.

"Facts" should be put in quotes.

You are right that each side is using different 'facts'. But why os it so hard to get real facts? Could it be beyond regular politics, but that HaliBu$hCO is so intent on secrecy? Why cna't we get all the 'facts' out inthte open to let the American people decide? Hiding things under 'national security' is an age old ruse.

We spend, what, $50m trying to discover the 'facts' about Whitewater, but ended up jsut discovering the personal extramarital affair of a president, which then warranted impeachment?

We have a real crisis now. If we need to spend $100m let's do it. ANd let's get those old docs about Reagan and Bush Daddy out into the sunlight where, by law, they are supposed to be.

Once we have more 'facts' we can make some real decisions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
David, I'm surprised, I had not thought of you as one of the Lemmings until this remark:

And here you use it in refering to a movie which you are not familiar with, which has not been proven false, and which you use derogatory language toward.

"which has not been proven false" Give me a COSTCO sized break! Pull your head out boy.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

ES



Oh, yeah. This guy is 'fair and balanced'.

Here's my one-paragraph summary: Fahrenheit 9/11 proposes conspiracy theories in support of a pacifist American foreign policy. Some of the film's major assertions are that a connection between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden can be made, that Bush has acted in favor of Saudis at the expense of Americans, and that the Saudis were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11.5 The film implies that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ineffective and unjust. It's also an attempt to reduce Bush's chances of re-election.

At least he got the last one right.


1. in support of a pacifist American foreign policy - not everyone, including MM IMO, that approves of the film is a pacifist.

2. connection between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden - only a connection between Duh and the bin Laden family, which there has been and is

3. Bush has acted in favor of Saudis at the expense of Americans - more accurately, Bush has acted in favor of Saudis for the benefit of himself and his oil buddies

4. implies that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ineffective and unjust - matter of opinion. Some may say all wars are ineffective and unjust. And MM is wrong if he thinks they are ineffective. They have galvanized Islamic fundies all over the world. Very effective. Unjust? Yes, because they were based on lies, which can be proven, circumstantially now, but definitevely once an investigation forces out all the garbage Bush is hiding (not a consiracy theory. We know he is keeping tons of info secret for 'national security' reasons.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
An interesting fact that many people may not be aware of: One of the original signers of the PNAC manifesto was Jeb Bush.

He is next in line for the throne. Well, for "pretender to the throne," anyway.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

> Were these documents of legend archived somewhere by someone wanting
> to preserve the evil world domination plan for later scrutiny? Would
> make some interesting reading.

Well, Google provided this NightLine link:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

- Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
> Were these documents of legend archived somewhere by someone wanting
> to preserve the evil world domination plan for later scrutiny? Would
> make some interesting reading.

Well, Google provided this NightLine link:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

- Steve


Interesting, Steve. I've tried it twice, and both times it crashed me out of my browser. My computer, for some reason, won't let me look at this.

Do you have another link, perhaps?

SLL




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This link will take a while to load, but it has many links (some outdated, of course) and many extracts from the web pages while they were still in existence.

Googled from "pnac archive"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80
Print the post Back To Top