Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" / Also 911 Road to Tyranny!!!

[AmishCommy]

booya!!! Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" comes out Friday June 25th. Go see it. Go see it many times. Force anyone you know to go see it!!!!

[crackhead]

It's a blatant rip off of "911 road to tyranny" with a twist.

[stalecracker]

For the fair and balanced crowd...

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/index.html

AND

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


AAAaaannd shouldn't this be in the Movie forum.

Right up there?

[crackhead]

Originally posted by stalecracker
For the fair and balanced crowd...

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/index.html

AND

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


AAAaaannd shouldn't this be in the Movie forum.

Right up there?

I know Moore is full of shit. Thats why I encourage people to see road to tyranny. It was made by Alex Jones, a good friend of DUN DUN DUN Jeff "the retard" Rense. All Moore did was subtract the craziest conspiracy parts of of Jones flick and rename it. Its all horse shit.

[DragonGX]

I'm not going to pay to see it... If I happen to see it for free anytime soon, then I might see it, or I'll just download it later... I'm not contributing to that jackass though..

[Retinal Haze]

Originally posted by crackhead
It's a blatant rip off of "911 road to tyranny" with a twist.

But somehow i dont think Alex Jones would really care much, as long as the message gets out

[seb]

There has recently appeared a Web site calling itself "Move America Forward" -- which in turn is being promoted by the right-wing Web site NewsMax -- that is dedicated to shutting down showings of Fahrenheit 9/11, at least in part by urging the public to contact theater owners directly. The result, according to What Really Happened, is that some of these owners "are reporting receiving death threats."

i think thats a good enough reason to go see it.

[crackhead]

Originally posted by Retinal Haze


But somehow i dont think Alex Jones would really care much, as long as the message gets out Is that so? Go to http://www.rense.com and listen to his interview with Jones and see just how "happy" he is.


mms://207.36.181.111/rense/rense05-24-04.wma

[troymcoy]

Any info on the release in europe/UK ?

I definately want to see it

[bat]

The only thing I agree with Moore about is his bit in Bowling where he states that America is controlled by fear. Not like that is a major revelation. However, he rails against fearmongering, yet makes movies that cause undo concern and fear. I am an owner of several guns, I was raised to be responisble around firearms, and there has never beena fatality in my family, even accidental, due to the use of guns. And there won't be, unless someone tries hurting someone around me or in self defense. I do not believe that any of the legislation has been effective because those with criminal intent will A) Get a gun through illegal means or B) Simply use either another weapon or pretend to have a weapon.

I do not fear guns, I am concerned about the people who want to take them away and what agenda is behind it. Alex Jones does make a lot of poignant statements in his movies, commentary and interviews (I have only heard him on the radio shows Coast to Coast and Mysteries of the Mind).

Fear and control are what spin the wheels here, not noble efforts. I prefer that people who want 'what's best for me' to worry about themselves and not push for laws limiting what I do. I am a law abiding citizen with a valid US passport and absolutely no criminal history, yet I cannot take a pair of fingernail clippers onto an airplane because I am a potential threat in the eyes of the concerned. I feel it is reprehensible for people in power/ in the limelight who sway people to their beliefs with false information that dupes people with good hearts to follow their point of view.

bat

[nick reynolds]

mms://207.36.181.111/rense/rense05-24-04.wma

That was the stupidest racist propaganda elitist bull shit I have ever heard.

[bat]

Originally posted by nick reynolds


That was the stupidest racist propaganda elitist bull shit I have ever heard.


Is there a particular bit of the interview that strikes you this way? I won't have time to hear it until tomorrow, but I have heard Alex Jones before and I honestly do not recall him making racist comments. I am not saying that he wouldn't or hasn't, just that I am not aware of it if he has and I am usually pretty good at hearing racist comments as they bother me very much.

However, I will say that Alex Jones is very deep into secret societies and their links to various death cults, which I find interesting, but I am not 110% convinced of. I do understand though from a reliable European (my grlfriend) that there is an upswing in occult practice and activity in Europe (she has returned from a recent three month trip), including death cults, which I find to be a bit interesting as well (ok, I am a little morbid and I like weird stuff, so sue me) and I would be interested in hearing from others with this type of information that are currently in Europe.


b a t

[nick reynolds]

Their comments about how all the Arabians and people coming into the US to go to college are all spies and if they don't come here as spies they still are. Shit like that, creating a negative stereotype of someone different then him who didn’t have the opportunities he did. Also, the constant announcers reference to how the people listening don't have a clue to what he is talking about and can't understand. hmmm maybe because you're feeding the world a load of BS most the time.

[bat]

Originally posted by nick reynolds
Their comments about how all the Arabians and people coming into the US to go to college are all spies and if they don't come here as spies they still are. Shit like that, creating a negative stereotype of someone different then him who didn’t have the opportunities he did. Also, the constant announcers reference to how the people listening don't have a clue to what he is talking about and can't understand. hmmm maybe because you're feeding the world a load of BS most the time.


Thanks for pointing that out. I will give it a listen tomorrow. I had really never heard Jones talk like that and it is very sad that he has chosen that path. He usually just mentions the government conspiracies and Baphomet cults. Also very untrue of him to say, I know of a few people here as students from the UAE who are very outstanding people who I trust to be here merely as students.

b a t

[AmishCommy]

all i have to say is that Bush and his crew are the most dishonest, self-serving people out there and they are using the horrors of 9-11 (which they most likely knew about and let it happen) to promote their crooked agenda. whenever anyone tries to point out the obvious lies, they are labled as un-american ot worce, a terrorist. Every single person who is pro-bush or anti-bush omits certain information to prove their point. I'm sure Michael Moore does the same thing at certain times. But i forgive him because he is trying to bring to the mainstream the ideas that have been suppressed by the establishment, and manipulated to brainwash the public. Corporations are profiting in iraq and aour brothers and siters, sons and daugters are dying. those who turn a blind eye to that fact, or worce, ignore it, have no right to call me un-american because i have a different opinion from them.

Chirac (i'm probly spelling his name wrong), the french president, said before we went to war in iraq, that it is his duty as a friend of the US to point out when we make a huge mistake. i'd like anyone to tell me that the war in Iraq was not a mistake.


p.s. the reason this is not in the movie forum is cause this has less to do with the movie and more with the politics of the movie

[jetpack42]

the war in iraq isn't so simple to be just "good" or just "bad". There are alot more issues involved, and this is an entirely different kind of conflict.

Maybe someday I'll watch a Moore movie, when I need to get really pissed off about how stupid people are. Really, I've browsed his site, and read some about him, I was pretty unimpressed.

[wassermelone]

Originally posted by AmishCommy
I'm sure Michael Moore does the same thing at certain times.

Certain times? Basically all of his movies are complete exageration, misdirection, and attempts to make viewers connect unrelated incidents that I am sure WWII propagandists would be proud of.

I am not saying Bush is good... Not at ALL. Its just that both of the extremes are really really bad.

Watch the movie if you want. Just take it with a two gallon tub of salt.

-toasty

[seb]

in related news,

"Baker was injured in January 2003 after volunteering to pose as an uncooperative detainee during the training exercise with the Michigan-based 303rd Military Police Company. He has said other military police officers beat and choked him and slammed his head against the floor"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2989915.php

[crackhead]

Originally posted by nick reynolds


That was the stupidest racist propaganda elitist bull shit I have ever heard.

Watch road to tyranny if you thought that was bad. Rense is a complete fuckstick and Jones isn't very different.

[Lono]

Originally posted by seb
in related news,

"Baker was injured in January 2003 after volunteering to pose as an uncooperative detainee during the training exercise with the Michigan-based 303rd Military Police Company. He has said other military police officers beat and choked him and slammed his head against the floor"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2989915.php

what a bunch of fucking chimps..
somebody did a study once where they hired a small group of college kids at random and split them in to two groups. one group was to act as prisoners and one was to act as guards.. the study was to go on for a couple of weeks but they had to kill it early because the guards were excessively abusing the prisoners.. they stoped it right before people were about to start being sodimized...
fucking lord of the flies and shit..

-Lono

[stalecracker]

p.s. the reason this is not in the movie forum is cause this has less to do with the movie and more with the politics of the movie

WAIT A MINUTE!!! It IS in the Movies Forum...

Has it always been here?

And...

I just checked and it was moved. *whew*

[Retinal Haze]

Originally posted by Lono


what a bunch of fucking chimps..
somebody did a study once where they hired a small group of college kids at random and split them in to two groups. one group was to act as prisoners and one was to act as guards.. the study was to go on for a couple of weeks but they had to kill it early because the guards were excessively abusing the prisoners.. they stoped it right before people were about to start being sodimized...
fucking lord of the flies and shit..

-Lono

I heard about that study as well.

I also heard about one study where they got random people to press a button that would "give" an electric shock to an actor in the next room. The rooms were only seperated by glass. And the experiment was to deal with how far a person would pretty much torment another. Left to their own devices a person rarely gave a "large" dose of electricity, but when a man in a white lab coat came in and told them to give increasingly powerful shocks they would follow his orders going all the way to the "leathal" levels. This dispite the fact the actor playing the person reciving the shock therapy would be begging for it to stop, and doing anything he could to appeal to their humanity. Regardless almost everyone gave a lethal shock when simply told to. It was an experiment to find out how people could commit atrocities such as those seen in WWII germany. Its scary stuff.

[Pencil Soldier]

"all i have to say is that Bush and his crew are the most dishonest, self-serving people out there and they are using the horrors of 9-11 (which they most likely knew about and let it happen) to promote their crooked agenda."

Amazing what the media can do to a mind...

Bush is dishonest? I'd have to say he's one of the more honest presidents we've had recently. You may disagree with his opinions, but at least you know what they are.

The statement that they most likley knew about 911 and didn't prevent it is ridiculous. That's like saying people knew that Pearl Habo was going to happen but didn't move to prevent it. Wait, it was suspected? But people dismissed the evidence. Same with 911. That means they are following some sort of agenda? Perhaps they made..a mistake?

And I haven't seen Bush promoting his 'crooked' agenda using 911 at all. I have seen him promoting his agenda using the fact that he is trying to liberate people from Iraq. Now it seems were doing a pretty shitty job, but who knows what things will be like down the road.

Just for the record, im not some huge fan of Bush. I just think that he's gotten way more bad press than he deserves.

[Carnifex]

Originally posted by Pencil Soldier

The statement that they most likley knew about 911 and didn't prevent it is ridiculous. That's like saying people knew that Pearl Habo was going to happen but didn't move to prevent it. Wait, it was suspected? But people dismissed the evidence. Same with 911. That means they are following some sort of agenda? Perhaps they made..a mistake?

And I haven't seen Bush promoting his 'crooked' agenda using 911 at all. I have seen him promoting his agenda using the fact that he is trying to liberate people from Iraq.
well,to tell you the shocking truth pearl habor was known about and the americans didn't prevent it at all out of mistake but on purpose because they wanted a reason to enter war.
plus why all of a sudden did bush want to liberate iraq?he didn't care a shit about it all the years before,he even gave good ol' saddam womds to drop on the kurds.what made him enter there suddenly?
did he need something to bring other things into ppls minds than that 9/11 was "staged"?
or did he just again take 9/11 as reason to enter iraq and its oil fields?

[stalecracker]

Originally posted by Carnifex

well,to tell you the shocking truth pearl habor was known about and the americans didn't prevent it at all out of mistake but on purpose because they wanted a reason to enter war.
plus why all of a sudden did bush want to liberate iraq?he didn't care a shit about it all the years before,he even gave good ol' saddam womds to drop on the kurds.what made him enter there suddenly?
did he need something to bring other things into ppls minds than that 9/11 was "staged"?
or did he just again take 9/11 as reason to enter iraq and its oil fields?


I was never more convinced that most of the worlds population is blissfully free from the ravages of intelligence until RIGHt now, this very moment.

*sigh*

[Carnifex]

and why is that?
because i express my mind and it sounds like "omg a conspiracy!"?
do you approve what bush is doing currently?acting like he's king of the world?

[bat]

Originally posted by Carnifex
and why is that?
because i express my mind and it sounds like "omg a conspiracy!"?
do you approve what bush is doing currently?acting like he's king of the world?

Do you know that Russian president Putin has verified that Saddam was planning on attacking the US and spreading terror throughout western society? And that Bush personally thanked Russian intelligence agents regarding this matter? Putin is opposed to the war but still acknowledges that the US has a reason beyond oil. There are many threats to the United States and luckily not everything is disclosed all the time right as it happens.

bat

[Pencil Soldier]

"and why is that?
because i express my mind and it sounds like "omg a conspiracy!"?"


Think for a second. The US had just been through a World War. They didn't want to be in the war, becuase war KILLS AMERICANS. (Isn't that everyone's problem with the war in Iraq? That it's killing Americans?) So, becuase they DON'T want Americans DEAD, they DON'T enter the war. Why would they be looking for an excuse to enter the war? They could enter it whenever they wanted to, but they didn't want to be involved, becuase they didn't want Americans killed. It took a threat to the nation to move them into action.

Which reminds me of a certain conflcit going on right now.:eek:

So yes, try thinking a little bit, and not just repeating what someone else has told you.

[stalecracker]

Originally posted by Pencil Soldier
"and why is that?
because i express my mind and it sounds like "omg a conspiracy!"?"


Think for a second. The US had just been through a World War. They didn't want to be in the war, becuase war KILLS AMERICANS. (Isn't that everyone's problem with the war in Iraq? That it's killing Americans?) So, becuase they DON'T want Americans DEAD, they DON'T enter the war. Why would they be looking for an excuse to enter the war? They could enter it whenever they wanted to, but they didn't want to be involved, becuase they didn't want Americans killed. It took a threat to the nation to move them into action.

Which reminds me of a certain conflcit going on right now.:eek:

So yes, try thinking a little bit, and not just repeating what someone else has told you.

Exactly! Well said. That, and you really sound bereft of common sense when you spout multiple BS con theories in one breath.

[JoshuaTheJames]

Hey guys,

I am just wondering why a lot of people are againt Moore?

I have seen his T.V. show and was a bit frustrated with it's biasness.


Just wondering what you all think,

-Joshua

[one2hit]

I am tired of everyone hating on Bush. If you want him out of office then cast your votes, if it doesn't happen and you still can't stand it then leave the country and find a better one.

[stalecracker]

"What good would that DO?!? He lost the last election so he stoleded the White House!"

I just wanted to see how it felt to be an Almond Joy.

I agree with, one2hit...

Quitcher Bitchen and V-O-T-E.

[JoshuaTheJames]

I wonder why people are so terribly afraid to even consider these supposive truths.

If it's not on Fox or CNN that means it's not the truth???
Insanity.

-Joshua

[Skank]

Originally posted by JOSHUATHEJAMES
Hey guys,

I am just wondering why a lot of people are againt Moore?

I have seen his T.V. show and was a bit frustrated with it's biasness.


Just wondering what you all think,

-Joshua

not only is he OVERLY biased (some bias is understandable, it happens) but he fabricates many of his "facts" that he uses to make his points with. sure he might get you to think about the subject, but dont insult my intelligence. personally id rather find my own facts.
theres so much hypocricy and bull shit on both sides of the debate that seems to me to be the only logical course of action: make up your own mind on what YOU have researched. finding unfiltered information is hard to do nowadays...everybodys got their own gawdamn agenda they want to see fullfilled.

[JoshuaTheJames]

I put a lot of faith into facts.

I just got done watching 911 the Road to Tyranny.

And I couldn't dream of such a horror story. I would never want to believe such a thing but, knowing what we know about history we cannot be too surprised and have a duty to at least consider it.

-Joshua

[Carnifex]

Originally posted by stalecracker


Exactly! Well said. That, and you really sound bereft of common sense when you spout multiple BS con theories in one breath.
ok,apologies.it's just for me when it comes to bush i become a bit blocked in normal thinking-because i can't remember having heard anything that he did really well.
this may sound like prejudices mixed with bs-but i really really really don't like bush.
personally i really hope he doesn't get elected again-and before you say go vote then-i live in europe.

[Neil]

of course you don't like Bush, your European. As much as the world hates him over there it is in the hands of the American People to see fit in which direction we will go. You may not like him because we are at war in Iraq or because he has hardened his stance with Europe but it seems that this is all the world knows of him and base their opinions on.

I hear all the time that Americans are sheep and our media is a big conspiracy and everything is a big coverup but honestly I think its all a bunch of BS. Its not like we don't have access to newspapers, other media outlets and the internet to base our opinions on.

I saw Bowling for Columbine and found it fascinating the disparity when he went from Detroit over the border to canada and crime pretty much disappeared. A lot of his other info I took with a grain of salt.

I probably won't see this movie because I already know his stance on Bush and I don't dwell on 9/11 being a big conspiracy or coverup. Of course there were terrorist threats but I honestly think no one could have thought that would happen or even prevented it in time. It happened and there is nothing we can do about it, we need to learn from it, make sure it never happens again, and destroy the root that caused it.

[Carnifex]

this are really good points neil...but somehow i don't have the feeling invading iraq helped much to find the root that caused 9/11.
osama is somewhere completely else...and if i remember right he was the one behind it,no?
not to bash the actions taken against saddam-it's good that he's gone-but still people in iraq have to suffer massively under this occupation.
what irritates me most btw when americans are at war(if i think about it,when anyone is at war) is that all the time we hear "and today this many american soldiers died during terrorist attack and yesterday this many",but one never hears any numbers on the "enemies" side(bc mostly the civilian population is hurt).it would be really good to hear that side of it also,bc ppl might stop thinking "poor american soldiers" and instead think "poor iraqi civilians".
of course one wants to know whats up with one's own ppl also,but they should add that other side also if you ask me.

[AnarchyAo2]

I saw Moore's video about colombine and guns in america. I'd have to say that he used stupid facts to prove his point. He kept bringing up that there are so many times murders in america then in other countries, but he didn't take population into consideration. There could be 1 murder in Dobledoville that has a population of 20, and 2 murders in Ablegaville that has a population of 40. Now Ablegaville may have more murders but it also have 2x the population so their just the same. He does twist facts around and bends the truth and thats exactly what hes preaching against. So why should I believe him? People say, "Don't believe whats on the news! I doesn't mean its true!", and yet they hang onto every word this man says and he is just as slick as the rest of the media!

[Pencil Soldier]

"I hear all the time that Americans are sheep and our media is a big conspiracy and everything is a big coverup but honestly I think its all a bunch of BS. Its not like we don't have access to newspapers, other media outlets and the internet to base our opinions on."

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html

I suggest you guys all read this article. It makes alot of sense and says all I'd want to say about the media in alot better way than I ever could.

[bat]

Originally posted by JOSHUATHEJAMES
I wonder why people are so terribly afraid to even consider these supposive truths.

If it's not on Fox or CNN that means it's not the truth???
Insanity.

-Joshua

I feel it is less people having any fear and more people doing actual research. I get most of my news information either from NPR or international/foreign news outlets and I know Moore is still an agitator. I think that many people by now know that CNN/FOx are basically tabloid news, sound bytes and sketchy information and, agreeing with Moore on one of his points in 'Bowling': fear. Watch two hours of CNN Headline News (if you can stomach it) and count how many times fear is used in the reporting, sometimes it is funny or ludicrous, sometimes specific to a certain target group and sometmes a blanket threat.

b a t

[Sinix]

Michael Moore is way too much of a biased extremist for my liking. It's particularly annoying when these things get labeled documentaries... when they're so laughably one-sided, sensational, and devoid of common sense.

[seb]

i think most people know moore produces op/ed pieces not documentries.

[Pencil Soldier]

You'd be suprised, seb.

I think what makes so little sense is the people that suport him. I read int he newspaper that a Democratic group is pushing it's members to drag all the people they know to the show, simply becuase it is against the other party. It's sick, and it's sad.

But what REALLY blows my mind are people that defend Moore, and think that he's tyring to do some sort of good. That I highly doubt. I look at his films, and I look at the photos I see and all I see is a smug man who happy that he's getting some attention. I really don't think he gives a damm about anything else except his publicity.

[Helium Macaroni]

Some consider Michael Moore to have the attributes of narcissistic personality disorder, a diagnosis that combines a need for attention, and mixes with feelings of both self-loathing and extreme confidence. He is no doubt inflammatory. He is absolutely out to advance his agenda; he has made no secret of it. His films do at times only show part of the picture, but again, are there to point out specific issues that he wishes to tackle, in an upfront way mixed with humor. Apparently this new film, which I'll see tonight, is much more succinctly laid out from one segment to another, from the ill fated 2000 election, to the run up to the war with Iraq. He has fact checking contingencies on his web-site, which you may or may not read, or believe depending on your level of partisanship. What is offered by the release of this move, in my opinion, is the debate brought to the forefront. If you believe Michael Moore frames his debate, then so be it, but realize this: this film, and the few in the left's passionate ilk stand against the vast machinery that has been developed and honed by the RNC, Rightwing PAC's, and affluent benefactors, who would have the drip of meaningful and legitimate debate in this country cut off. Why? Because profits depend upon public opinion, and the less the public knows about what is done for the benefit of the few, the better for those in power and wealth. This film indeed may cut out particular details, I'll find out tonight, but as far as I see it, it stands a better litmus test against the check of reality than Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingram, Coulter, Limbaugh, and the other members of the vastly dishonest right-wing media whom have spend millions upon millions in order not to just silence truths, but to attack those who would bring debate from the left. If they may spew their hate towards I and those who choose to question the motives, mechanisms, and honesty of my government, then I and my kind may have our moment of flagrant incendiary accusations. I shall not support or excuse dishonesty, but if slanted truths fall from Moore's mouth, I will allow him liberty to comment as he wishes, and decide if those items are indeed in synch with reality. I have seen far worse coming from the side that claims righteousness, when it practices murder, compassion when it deals inequality, patriotism when imposing doctrine that jeopardizes the lives of those it swears to protect, both home and abroad.

Maybe we can look past the surface of what is said on screen, and look at the themes presented. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore's overriding point is that our society is driven by fear and consumption; leave it to Marylyn Manson to derive this truth. Do you disagree? It's a pretty good point. This is all about debate. The Right has had its say, give someone else a chance to be a big fat pain in the ass. What Moore is presenting in F911 is pretty straight forward, Bush was not elected by the majority of the country, he has special ties to the Saudis thru Harken Energy, and other business ventures, that we were told false information in the lead up to the war, and that the device of connecting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was used by the administration as a pretext for military action. These are neither alien nor unreasonable arguments. I certainly don't think people are treating Moore as much as an idol as some people think they are. I certainly don't. I know he is right along the lines of my beliefs when political agenda is involved, his approach is different and jaded though, plus there’s that narcissism thing I spoke of. People want to drag other people to go see it because the themes ring true, and it feels good to experience momentum for you cause. When you are as marginalized as much as the left has been, you tend to feel some elation when one, maybe a bit crazier than you, of the ilk gets through to a mass audience. "finally our side might get some decent air time." I don't know if anyone noticed, but that does happen less these days, with media consolidation and the "Clear-Channeling" of American broadcast, dissenting voices are not given the same type of legitimate podium time as the Right, thank Clinton for that deregulation and the unbalancing of the airwaves. So it's completely true that regardless of where you turn, you're going to get more or less the same thing. It doesn’t mean Americans are sheep to their unconquerable media, but they are certainly boxed in and limited in terms of mainstream dissemination of non-slanted information. When the major media conglomerates are either run by Defense Contractors or by conservative media giants and even known Right-wing financiers, no doubt there will be a slant. That is undeniable. The media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them, regardless of how liberal Aaron Brown or Chris Mathews is. The goal through the convergence of media is to produce efficient members of the greater economy based on fear, consumption, and disposability, to eliminate dissent for wars that end up benefiting the military-industrial complex that is in turn highly integrated with said media. Why would NBC, owned by GE, one of the world largest weapons manufacturers sew large scale seeds of dissent by showing the realities of war, when the very progression of that war will utilize its products and services? It's absolutely fascinating.

As for Moore's agenda, what’s the problem with it, objectively? The agenda of his opponents is to keep subdued the great mass of people who are marginalized by the excessive neo-conservative ideology that further widens the rift between the haves and the have-nots. Anyone hear the tapes of the Enron guys saying how their going to "fuck all of the grandma's in California" by price fixing, and enacting privatization while California burned from wildfires? How about our constant support for oppressive regimes around the world in accordance with the domino effect or the securing of natural resources? Then there's those who think that as the only industrialized nation without a national health care system, that the corporate sector can provide better coverage, and more efficiently, while its executives earn multi-million dollar salaries, and their patients are denied proper treatment, drugs, and hospital stays? Whose agenda is better? As far as he has said, Michael Moore seems to be for universal health care, better allocation of public funds from the military to the social sector, economic justice and viability for those who deal with a system based on "rugged individualism" which forces them to live with sub par public education, a health system driven by robber barons, and an increasingly militarized society as we march into a new era or constant war with a non-state based worldwide terror network, whom they are to be used as cannon fodder against, not to mention a decaying urban sector as well as a withering of domestic work. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth, as an objective individual I can discount neither. But I know what's right and what side he's on. I can only perceive a world I see filled with injustice that is helped not by those who stand for political nepotism, crony capitalism, and neo-conservative unilateral doctrines of preemption and U.S. Global dominance in accordance to our whims and "interests." To me, it's common sense, with whom to side. Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? Questions upon questions and you decide which side you’re on, with the crazies against the psychos. We all have our lot, and our compatriots. The sad fact from an historical standpoint and especially a socio-economic one, this nation is gasping. Look at the trade deficits to the infant mortality rate, from the joblessness rate to the, disparity from rich to poor. The facts are there, and what Moore is trying to do is bring that debate, those questions to the forefront of your mind, to either sear or sooth, to enrage or lament. What's important is what you do with that information and that you take it in. At least it's being said. At least it’s allowed to be said, because if the countless pundits, lobbyists, and politicians who have lied to FORCE their agenda had their way, you wouldn’t have the luxury of being enraged. Moore is not forcing anything. You don't have to buy a ticket, or buy in to the argument. But come June 2005, if a man named Bush stands in the White house, you will have an agenda of military servitude, for a select age group, unavoidable by gender, or student status forced upon you. You'll have trade deficits and national debt that will have to be paid off by your children's children's children, and an increasing amount of wealth concentrated at the top, where the rich get all the cake, and the poor get dirt. Which agenda tastes better?

[HugeHarHar]

I saw the Bowling for Columbine thing, and proved to me that he is a complete and total idiot, as well as a greedy fuck bent on using age old biased and twisted media facts and opinions to make some money for himself. First nothing in the movie is origninal. All of it stolen from someone, somewhere. And all of it bent and twisted.

Oh, and if you made it illegal to own or make guns, how would that affect criminals? They're criminals. They do illegal stuff. So make it where only they have guns. Fine, what if there are no guns at all? They'll find something else to commit their illegal deeds. Rocks, knives, pencils, branches. Are you going to make it illegal to have rocks? That would be alittle hard.

Anyways. If you honestly think he is a smart, good, honerable, decent, helpful, or intelligent man...then please find some unbiased, truthful, good, information.

Micheal Moore is a greedy fuck.

[Pencil Soldier]

Helium Macaroni- Some intresting things, but it all boils down to one thing for me. If Micheal Moore is out to show the truth to the 'vastly dishonest right-wing', the best way to do that would be with SOLID FACTS. By twisting and distorting the truth, and making up facts, he shows that the right dosen't really have as much to hide as he'd like you to think. If the right really had such a major conspiracy, then he would only have to present the solid facts and it would be plausible.

Not to mention the fact of a double standard. He, and most Democrats, paint the right as dishonest, monye grubbing pigs, and use lies, propaganda and such to prove it. If Moore has this big agenda, the best way to do it ould be with honest facts. That is what is missing from politics, on both sides! He dosen't, and that says to me that he is just as much of a moron as any other Democrat. Or even any other Republican.

[Lono]

Helium Macaroni: i didnt have the energy to jump into this thread after all of he crap thats being slung around.. but i must say,, you prettymuch sumed up my feelings on the subject.. sure Moore has a tendancy to put a spin on things and just like all the other opinionated people posting in this thread, he has an agenda which makes him a bit bias at times... but im really glad there is someone out there turning those stones that would have otherwise never been turned. ill watch his movies with the same ammount of scepticism i would the news and anything else for that matter,, and ill decide for myself what i want to believe and what is worth investigating. shit i even listen to Rush Limbaugh sometimes,, but im rarely supprised by the crap that comes out of his mouth... everyone here claimes to be in search of "facts",, but its obvious that they are just looking for validation to there unwavering assumptions..
its easy for people to make gross generallizations about the right or the left.. but easy is for idiots.. i prefer to walk the thinest line possable,, personally..

-Lono

[Helium Macaroni]

Lono, Glad you agree. I actually saw the movie last Friday, and regardless of any possible distortion, or slant that Moore may exhibit, this movie is at the very least extremely moving. There isn't nearly as much of his appearance as there was in Bowling for Columbine. Items are presented very straightforwardly and quite concise. It really didn't present anything new to me, but it certainly caused me to become very emotional. Regardless of anyone's political disposition, I would recommend they see it merely for footage that would never have been seen in the main stream media, or stories of grief that have not been allowed to filter through, showing grizzly reality that may indeed change ones opinion of the war and the Bush administration. So maybe those who are partisan enough to brand Moore a liar before they even see the film can put their predispositions aside and take a look at the other side's argument, presented in a very organized and touching way. It's all my opinion after all, but I would find it hard to believe that someone would come out of the theater still having full confidence in the current administration and their motives. People will think what they will though.

I congratulate you on having an open mind to both sides, especially the most fanatical. I also will occasionally flip the dial to Rush, or Hannity, and get a dose of what is presented by them. When compared to what I read in the main stream and the fringe, to what I have unearthed from more "intellectual" sources, I can usually piece together what feels like an accurate picture of reality, and that reality, speaking from a socio-economic or political perspective, never aligns with what is offered by the Right. It particularly amuses me when people against those like Moore point out that he is just trying to advance his agenda. Indeed he most certainly is. But for the reasons I have given above and more, I wholeheartedly support his desired end than anything proposed by neo-conservative doctrine regardless of his own narcissistic desires or the advancement of his agenda. Kudos to you for taking in all sides. I hope you check out the movie, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[diagetus]

I agree with many of Macaroni's statements. But,


"But come June 2005, if a man named Bush stands in the White house, you will have an agenda of military servitude, for a select age group, unavoidable by gender, or student status forced upon you."

Can you explain this in more detail Macaroni? Are you referring to the draft or a new draft system that Bush wants installed?


Even though Moore does have some slanted views in the movie, many of the questions he asks his audience to address are quite reasonable. It does feel good to have someone on the left(at least for now) having his say. I believe Moore has become a modern gadfly for the American audience. It was not easy for him to find a distrubutor that would show this movie. He is saying things you don't want to hear but that you should listen to. He is showing you things that you don't want to look at, but need to see. As Macaroni said, you would not be able to view some of the footage that is presented in this movie through the mainstream media. The face of war is ugly. I think Moore paints a fairly realistic portrait for us. It was questionable whether Moore's film would be a success or not. It looks like the former is the case because he's pulled in a good 21 million dollars on the movie already. So much for trying to boycott the film. As much as people were to trying to cut off Moore's message, too many people were willing to hear what he had to say. I think that's a good thing in the case of this movie.
I was always against the war in Iraq, but not strongly so. After watching the movie I became even more set in my opposition to it and have started to consider what I can do as a citizen of the United States to oppose the military war. I do believe we need to wage war on terrorism, but not through military means.
Here are some of the other points Moore is trying to make in the movie.

1. When Bush barely won in the state of Florida, there was a call for an ~investigation of the votes counted. All that was needed to commence the investigation was a single objection from a member of the Senate. At the time, the Senate was majority ruled by the republicans. Although the House of Representatives had many objections, there was not one objection in the Senate. Not one. Do you really think the Republican Party was not biased?

2.Out of the approximately 500 congressman there is only one who has a child that is in the military(it is not known if that child is in the front lines in Iraq). For a congress that supports the war so strongly, wouldn't there be more sons and daughters enlisted in the war or congressman set on joining the military effort after their terms? Would Bush send his own children off to war? (I can answer this question) I can guarantee you he will not. For a nation that is so strongly for the war, why aren't more people quitting their jobs and dropping out of school to enlist for the war?

3. For those who are against the war, we are not ashamed of our troops. We are ashamed of a president who has taken advantage of their loyalty and their obligation to this country. Let's not forget that people who signed up for the military are obligated to serve when called upon, regardless of the reason behind being called to war. So for those who say, "They are out there fighting for our freedoms; for you and me."- Well..., Yes and No. Some soldiers wanted to go over to Iraq, others did not want to go to Iraq, but they must because they are obligated to go. If some of the soldiers had a crystal ball and could have known that they would be in Iraq if they enlisted, I'm sure you'd have half the number of soldiers enlisting. If you believe in the war, then you need to hurry up and enlist. Don't delay! There are plenty of soldiers over there now who don't want to be in Iraq. You can take their place. Everyone is for the war until their sons, daughters, mothers and fathers start dying. People change their opinion about war when the casualties come close to home. Watch the movie and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand if some other country actually invaded our east or western coast, you would have all kinds of citizens putting their normal lives on hold and wanting to defend our country because that is a real threat to the U.S.

4. Bush had ties with the oil industry and these ties intertwine with the Saudi Arabians. The Saudis gave refuge to those who we would consider possible threats to the U.S. Why haven't we been harder on the Saudis?

5. When Bush was basically told that the U.S. was under attack he sat still for more than five minutes in front of a class room instead of excusing himself to more appropriately consider how seriously injured the country really was and what to do about it. He didn't have to tell the classroom what was going on. He just needed to excuse himself.

6. We have not found Bin Laden and we let his family fly away when we should have been questioning them. Don't you find that strange?

7. Breast milk can not be brought on to a plane, but lighters can. By the way, this open policy was after the shoe bomb. Why is that?

8. Yes, some of the footage shows the grief/anger (and rightly so) of those Iraqi citizens who lost family members that were innocent bystanders. Innocent Iraqi people, who were children, mothers, and elderly, were killed. We need to be aware that we are creating sorrow and perhaps a new breed of opposition in place of the old persecutions. We also need to remember that these people have a long history and that we are a very young nation. Our nation is only a couple hundred years old whereas these people have been around culturally for thousands of years. We may hold vengeance in our hearts for half a century, but for these people that is but a drop in the ocean. Don't be surprised if revenge is taken 200 years from now. The innocent victimized families don't care about our justification for war. Would you care if some foreign power came in and killed your parents? Would you not seek vengeance? Think about where these people are coming from and ask yourself if full scale military force is the appropriate tool to solve the injustices against Iraqi citizens.

9.Yes, Michael Moore has some slanted scenes in his movie. He also makes sure to let you know that what you have been viewing through mainstream television is also slanted and filtered. For example, the american public was not allowed to see american military coffins arriving at the states or services for the deceased soldiers.

10.Yes, people are being abused in Iraq. People are lacking the necessities in the U.S. as well. There are war zones in the U.S.. We are, in a sense at war in our own country. The billions we have spent on the war could have been used to help those in need right here in the U.S. It's like trying to help lift someone else up when you've only been working out one arm and the other arm is all thin and malnutritioned. Build up your country internally. Help yourself so that you can be more equipped to help others.

Now, for some of my own statements:

1. I don't even think the bombing of Afghanistan was reasonable. It's as if we just needed to retaliate against somebody and Afghanistan seemed like the best fit so we bombed them. Remember how quickly we retaliated. It was within the season. We did not ponder over our action for even a short time. Many innocent lives were taken as a result. Imagine if the Klu Klux Klan went over to some other country like China and killed a couple thousand Chinese. Then China came over with its billions and waged war against the U.S. Do you think it's right for us to be attacked because of something that a small group of extremists did? Should we have to pay for that with innocent American lives? I think you would answer "No." Well, that's probably how the people of Afghanistan and Iraq feel.

2. I'm not a big fan of Bush as you can probably tell. I'm not big on Kerry either since he has said he wants 4,000 or 40,000 more troops over in Iraq. This election is obviously about choosing between the lesser of two evils. As usual, the third party candidates can't muster up enough following and the remaining third party candidates seem to be just as bad as the main party candidates. However, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent president in my view. That is established. So I'm more likely to give Kerry a chance. The way I see it, you have the choice of walking into a bowl of hot lava(Bush) or walking into a cave that is pitch black(Kerry). For now I'm leaning more towards the pitch black cave, perhaps I can come out alive.

3. The Catholic Church hasn't offered much leeway in terms of voting either. The Pope has clearly stated that he is not pleased with the war in Iraq. On the other hand you have Archbishop Raymond Burke saying Kerry will be denied communion and anyone who votes for Kerry will have to go to confession. Either way, if you're Catholic you have a serious amount to account for. It's just rough times right now. Hopefully, in the future we can have more diversified elections.

4. Take a look at Macaroni's signature-

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, The world in arms is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."
This is saying a great deal. Think about the billions of dollars that went into the war. Now think about all of the cities in the U.S. that could have been rebuilt. Look at how many troops are over in Iraq. Place these same troops in each major city of the U.S. for two months as guardian angels and think about how much crime would be eliminated. Why can't either of these things be done? Let's pull the plank out of our own eye first.

[Helium Macaroni]

diagetus: I'd love to reply to your message in greater detail, but it's about 3 am here and I'm whipped. But yes I was referring to the new draft proposal currently going through congress; twin bills S 89 and HR 163 namely. While I can't guarantee that Kerry would be against the draft, but I can say with complete certainty that this current administration would not hesitate to approve a nationwide selective service re-activation. Kerry however has said that the draft would "go against our tradition of an all volunteer military," which I take as saying that he would not support such an initiative. Again, I can't be certain, but I think he would be astute enough to realize that his approval rating would immediately drop if such a measure was initiated during a Kerry administration. I think also since he actually served in conflict, and then fought against it, that he would have a special empathy for possible conscripts who would wish not to serve.

I think you've made some great points and I agree wholeheartedly with your views. I'd love to get more in-depth, but as I've said, I'm a bit tuckered.

Until later...

[Grooveholmes]

I saw f/911 opening day, and it rocks.
we went during the day to a matinee showing at 3 in the afternoon and the theatre was jam packed with people.. it was literally overflowing. There are more of us than the mainstream media would have you believe.

Bush... We're coming fo' yo' ass, bitch.


..if the bush regime manages to stay in power after this election thanks to more of thier shiesty trickery (diebold.) I predict a civil war brewing in this country.

<picks up torch, pitch-fork, and automatic weapon>

[wassermelone]

But yes I was referring to the new draft proposal currently going through congress; twin bills S 89 and HR 163 namely.

The draft proposal is quite a sham. Proposed by a Democrat (Rep. Charles Rangel) to supposedly show the rich that they should not be exempt...

But personally I think it was very obviously a very clever ploy to discredit the Republican party more as it would very quickly be blamed on Bush. I don't think I am being a stupid conspiracy theorist with this as it is actually working. I don't know if a day goes by when I hear about that bill and then someone says something like: "Man... I hate Bush!".

Now... I very much dislike Bush, but don't go blaming him for something he nothing to do with.

-toasty

[Skank]

its easy for people to make gross generallizations about the right or the left.. but easy is for idiots.. i prefer to walk the thinest line possable,, personally..

-Lono

agreed
i see no other logical path

[Grooveholmes]

Some consider Michael Moore to have the attributes of narcissistic personality disorder, a diagnosis that combines a need for attention, and mixes with feelings of both self-loathing and extreme confidence. He is no doubt inflammatory. He is absolutely out to advance his agenda; he has made no secret of it. His films do at times only show part of the picture, but again, are there to point out specific issues that he wishes to tackle, in an upfront way mixed with humor. Apparently this new film, which I'll see tonight, is much more succinctly laid out from one segment to another, from the ill fated 2000 election, to the run up to the war with Iraq. He has fact checking contingencies on his web-site, which you may or may not read, or believe depending on your level of partisanship. What is offered by the release of this move, in my opinion, is the debate brought to the forefront. If you believe Michael Moore frames his debate, then so be it, but realize this: this film, and the few in the left's passionate ilk stand against the vast machinery that has been developed and honed by the RNC, Rightwing PAC's, and affluent benefactors, who would have the drip of meaningful and legitimate debate in this country cut off. Why? Because profits depend upon public opinion, and the less the public knows about what is done for the benefit of the few, the better for those in power and wealth. This film indeed may cut out particular details, I'll find out tonight, but as far as I see it, it stands a better litmus test against the check of reality than Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingram, Coulter, Limbaugh, and the other members of the vastly dishonest right-wing media whom have spend millions upon millions in order not to just silence truths, but to attack those who would bring debate from the left. If they may spew their hate towards I and those who choose to question the motives, mechanisms, and honesty of my government, then I and my kind may have our moment of flagrant incendiary accusations. I shall not support or excuse dishonesty, but if slanted truths fall from Moore's mouth, I will allow him liberty to comment as he wishes, and decide if those items are indeed in synch with reality. I have seen far worse coming from the side that claims righteousness, when it practices murder, compassion when it deals inequality, patriotism when imposing doctrine that jeopardizes the lives of those it swears to protect, both home and abroad.

Maybe we can look past the surface of what is said on screen, and look at the themes presented. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore's overriding point is that our society is driven by fear and consumption; leave it to Marylyn Manson to derive this truth. Do you disagree? It's a pretty good point. This is all about debate. The Right has had its say, give someone else a chance to be a big fat pain in the ass. What Moore is presenting in F911 is pretty straight forward, Bush was not elected by the majority of the country, he has special ties to the Saudis thru Harken Energy, and other business ventures, that we were told false information in the lead up to the war, and that the device of connecting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was used by the administration as a pretext for military action. These are neither alien nor unreasonable arguments. I certainly don't think people are treating Moore as much as an idol as some people think they are. I certainly don't. I know he is right along the lines of my beliefs when political agenda is involved, his approach is different and jaded though, plus there’s that narcissism thing I spoke of. People want to drag other people to go see it because the themes ring true, and it feels good to experience momentum for you cause. When you are as marginalized as much as the left has been, you tend to feel some elation when one, maybe a bit crazier than you, of the ilk gets through to a mass audience. "finally our side might get some decent air time." I don't know if anyone noticed, but that does happen less these days, with media consolidation and the "Clear-Channeling" of American broadcast, dissenting voices are not given the same type of legitimate podium time as the Right, thank Clinton for that deregulation and the unbalancing of the airwaves. So it's completely true that regardless of where you turn, you're going to get more or less the same thing. It doesn’t mean Americans are sheep to their unconquerable media, but they are certainly boxed in and limited in terms of mainstream dissemination of non-slanted information. When the major media conglomerates are either run by Defense Contractors or by conservative media giants and even known Right-wing financiers, no doubt there will be a slant. That is undeniable. The media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them, regardless of how liberal Aaron Brown or Chris Mathews is. The goal through the convergence of media is to produce efficient members of the greater economy based on fear, consumption, and disposability, to eliminate dissent for wars that end up benefiting the military-industrial complex that is in turn highly integrated with said media. Why would NBC, owned by GE, one of the world largest weapons manufacturers sew large scale seeds of dissent by showing the realities of war, when the very progression of that war will utilize its products and services? It's absolutely fascinating.

As for Moore's agenda, what’s the problem with it, objectively? The agenda of his opponents is to keep subdued the great mass of people who are marginalized by the excessive neo-conservative ideology that further widens the rift between the haves and the have-nots. Anyone hear the tapes of the Enron guys saying how their going to "fuck all of the grandma's in California" by price fixing, and enacting privatization while California burned from wildfires? How about our constant support for oppressive regimes around the world in accordance with the domino effect or the securing of natural resources? Then there's those who think that as the only industrialized nation without a national health care system, that the corporate sector can provide better coverage, and more efficiently, while its executives earn multi-million dollar salaries, and their patients are denied proper treatment, drugs, and hospital stays? Whose agenda is better? As far as he has said, Michael Moore seems to be for universal health care, better allocation of public funds from the military to the social sector, economic justice and viability for those who deal with a system based on "rugged individualism" which forces them to live with sub par public education, a health system driven by robber barons, and an increasingly militarized society as we march into a new era or constant war with a non-state based worldwide terror network, whom they are to be used as cannon fodder against, not to mention a decaying urban sector as well as a withering of domestic work. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth, as an objective individual I can discount neither. But I know what's right and what side he's on. I can only perceive a world I see filled with injustice that is helped not by those who stand for political nepotism, crony capitalism, and neo-conservative unilateral doctrines of preemption and U.S. Global dominance in accordance to our whims and "interests." To me, it's common sense, with whom to side. Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? Questions upon questions and you decide which side you’re on, with the crazies against the psychos. We all have our lot, and our compatriots. The sad fact from an historical standpoint and especially a socio-economic one, this nation is gasping. Look at the trade deficits to the infant mortality rate, from the joblessness rate to the, disparity from rich to poor. The facts are there, and what Moore is trying to do is bring that debate, those questions to the forefront of your mind, to either sear or sooth, to enrage or lament. What's important is what you do with that information and that you take it in. At least it's being said. At least it’s allowed to be said, because if the countless pundits, lobbyists, and politicians who have lied to FORCE their agenda had their way, you wouldn’t have the luxury of being enraged. Moore is not forcing anything. You don't have to buy a ticket, or buy in to the argument. But come June 2005, if a man named Bush stands in the White house, you will have an agenda of military servitude, for a select age group, unavoidable by gender, or student status forced upon you. You'll have trade deficits and national debt that will have to be paid off by your children's children's children, and an increasing amount of wealth concentrated at the top, where the rich get all the cake, and the poor get dirt. Which agenda tastes better?

HERE HERE.

[Crease Tofer]

I havent seen the flic yet, but i plan to soon.

I don't like Bush as a president, but I think he'd be a fun guy to party with. From what I've heard he's put a few dollars up his nose and he said himself he used to be a drinker. Which is fine; some say you cant trust a man whose never drank. Cocaine is another story, but one i know little about so i wont go further.

From all the times i have seen Bush speak, or read things he's said, the man emits [to me] an undeniable likeness to a puppet. I'm not going to go in depth with any con theories or ties to oil or Saudis, you've all seen plenty of that. All i want to say about Bush is that he seems like a tool. He's got this weak air about him, maybe its those slanted puppydog eyebrows, or his fragile voice, something, everything stinks of weakness. Stumbling and stammering with that annoying voice of his makes me dislike Bush [as a president] so much. Will Ferrel does a great impression of G Dubya, if ya havent seen it check it out. Notice the things he emphasizes, namely- weakness and naivety.

Have you ever heard old radio broadcasts from Churchill or Roosevelt? They had conviction and heart when they spoke to the masses, not to mention sincerity and strength. They were in charge. No pussyfooting around like presidents today. Campaigning and kissing ass for years to become the Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world...wtf. Kennedy used to have sex with Marilyn Monroe [common knowledge i think, not sure], and had the audacity to have her perform at the white house (happy birthday Mr President). These days Clinton cant even get a BJ from an intern without cries of impeachment.

I want a fuckin leader for our top dog. I want military experience because the military builds strong leaders. Someone who wont flinch when you cock your fist. You guys know what im talking about here? I'm not tossing around a bunch of political bs because i just wanted to talk about the feel i get from Bush.

I'm in the army National Guard, just finished my third year with a 6 month tour in Bosnia. Soldiers know what they're getting into when they sign the papers, the risks are made evident and everyone is given several oportunities to back out. As far as Iraq is concerned, i dont want to go. I know several poeple that actually do, some of whom got thier wish. Dont pity the soliders, be glad that those Marines and other active military are willing to do the shit they do. And be proud of them more than anything because they take pride in themselves. I hate to put human lives into statistics, but i think it would be interesting to know how many lives were saved or improved due to the ousting of Saddam, compared to how many it cost. Its good that Saddam is out...does the end justify the means? Fukifino.

I'm going to vote for Kerry in the fall, and you know the sad thing, i dont know a goddamn thing about him. Think about that.

my first post here at CA, kinda lame it wasnt about art~

Crease~

[Lono]

saw the film last night.. pretty intense and scary. a lot of it i already knew, like the bush family relationship with the Binladens,, but fucking A,, the backscratching and towell poping goes far beyond what i thought i knew... and Keeeeeeeerhist Bush is an idiot.. he has the mind of a child.. the part when he was on the extended vacation and the reporter asked him what he was working on,,, that was HILARIOUS.. he just started throwing out random jargon.
he also acts like a spoiled butthole.. remember the part where he shot the clay pigion and then turned around to say,,"isnt anyone going to tell me nice shot?"..

-Lono

[darkcult]

he also acts like a spoiled butthole.. remember the part where he shot the clay pigion and then turned around to say,,"isnt anyone going to tell me nice shot?"..


So he is acting like CRACKHEAD there at eatpoo.
:dead3:

[Lono]

precisely..

-Lono

[MDuckett]

Moore is a *filmmaker* after all. Of course his face is gonna be all over this. Any way, nicely said, helium (i hope people read it all the way through!). Really, though, honestly, is there anything good about Bush? Is there any real reason to back him up? Has he done anything at all that anyone else wouldn't have done better (aside from kneeling in front of special interests and whittling away personal freedoms)? C'mon people. Be objective.

[RefrigeratorCo]

I saw the Bowling for Columbine thing, and proved to me that he is a complete and total idiot, as well as a greedy fuck bent on using age old biased and twisted media facts and opinions to make some money for himself. First nothing in the movie is origninal. All of it stolen from someone, somewhere. And all of it bent and twisted.

I know dude! I hate how documentaries just steal footage!


Oh, and if you made it illegal to own or make guns, how would that affect criminals? They're criminals. They do illegal stuff.

Good point.


So make it where only they have guns. Fine, what if there are no guns at all? They'll find something else to commit their illegal deeds. Rocks, knives, pencils, branches. Are you going to make it illegal to have rocks? That would be alittle hard.

Another good point.


Anyways. If you honestly think he is a smart, good, honerable, decent, helpful, or intelligent man...then please find some unbiased, truthful, good, information.


Yeah, all that stuff in the documentar was totally false.

[Grooveholmes]

can you form your own opinion on this refrigerator?

[Deth Jester]

I'd like to say I look at both sides pretty well.. and am middle of the road..

One thing I thought was iffy was.

Bush Sr. recieves 20 million dollars a year from the President of Saudi Arabia as an advisor.. This started when his son was elected.

Talk about putting your hand in someones pocket!

The other thing is when we went to IRAQ the reason was.. " we are going to find weapons of mass distruction." As soon as they figured out there were none.. it went too.. " we are liberating the people of Iraq".. What kinda bullshit is that!

You can't just up and change the reason as it suits you..

I think everyone has made some good points.. and this is a great read for anyone who doesn't pay attention to what is going on in there country..

Some things that I have read over the past few months I find sad.

1. We killed more innocent people in Afghanistan with our bombs, then people were killed in the Trade Towers..

2. Most people don't know there State Representatives and/or Senators. They also don't even know the people in there city councils. Shoot some didn't even vote. And the worst part is a lot of those people called you "UnAmerican" when you were anti-war and sided with the French, and when you didn't wave a flag and sport it after 911.

This is even sadder... I use to work at a Flag,banner, sign, decal kind of place.. We normally stockpiled Flags of different countries for people to come in and buy.. I'd say we had about 100 or so American Flags.. After 911, we sold every single one.. And we didn't jack up the prices.. People would come in astonished that we didn't jack up the prices.. They said they had been to other places trying to buy flags and the owners had risen the prices emensely.. How sad is that.. Talk about coporate america at its finest... what crap..

I haven't gotten to see Moore's movie.. but I am sure I will.. Its always nice to broaden your horizens.. And who said you should take "EVERYTHING" you see as fact.. C'mon.. Use a little common sense.. I think that should be the message sent out to people.. Take everything with a grain of salt.. Look at both sides of the story...

Im over typing.. I think I have just wasted 15 minutes typing my thoughts..

I probably wont be back to this thread..

peace
-mike

[Orban]

A nice move from Mr Moore : He doesn't care you pirate his film! (http://www.sundayherald.com/43167)

Lion's gate too doesn't care... so like him or not, he do something other director doesn't do :p (Tarentino said the same about his film where they're not distributed)

[pender]

Why is it that anyone who doesn't like Moore, or his films, says that the guy just lies and bends the truth, that there are no facts backing his message...Take your head out of the sand ppl, facts like after being "elected", the pres. was on vaction for about 40% of the time until sep. 11, That he was "allowed" to leave the reserve (who else is allowed to leave a military service), along with a man that would latter serve as a financial advisor to the bin laden family, that in turn help George W. finance all his failed businesses, which, surprise, surprise, where oil companies. More facts? At a press confernce, the president said that they weren't too concerned with finding Osama...the man behind the group who attacked us. How about the fact that Bush Jr. wouldn't allow a private investigation into 9/11...a common practice, even when kennedy was assassinated. Throw in Haliburton, Defense contracts, the Patriot Act, the WMD (weapons of mass destructoin) lie...it boggles the mind :ep: The same republican party who wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, are strangely silent on this...and don't get me started on the catholic church...I think we can remember there silent acceptance of the holocaust, as well as the numerous killings in the name of god...well, that is my cent and a half.... :dance:

[bat]

Why is it that anyone who doesn't like Moore, or his films, says that the guy just lies and bends the truth, that there are no facts backing his message...


Could it be that people think this because he does do these things? Could it be that both sides lie and distort the facts and the truth? Points to ponder.

b a t

[Jason Manley]

i have seen it....it is very moving. keep an open mind and take from it what you can. It is worth your time. J

[Chris J. Anderson!]

I've read what most of you've said here. Everyone in this thread is either saying they don't like George Bush or they don't like Michael Moore, or they take no sides and instead look at other sources for their information about the "real truths" going on.

First off, no body knows the truth of shit about anything Moore says, or Bush says, or any source of information presents. If you aren't in Iraq personally to see shit, or if your not there to watch every foolish thing that Bush does, or if your not there to witness how Moore gathers his so-called "facts", then none of you or anyone knows any real truth about these topics. You can guess, wonder, spectulate, get into all these political debates, etc, but all you can do is realize shit based on what you've personally experienced first hand, living your life on this planet. Not by what you heard this big name guy say or based off what some article stated. And if anyone has any common sense, they'd realize that their are no good countries in this world. I say that because, any country with any real power has two main goals, to gain more land and more resources any way they can without destroying their credibility with their own people. No country is really for the people, and thy're especially not for any other people outside their own. They are only for more land and resources and all other luxuries that come with it. Therefore, what ever negative shit Moore says about Bush or our country, etc, shouldn't matter, and the info shouldn't be anything suprising or brand new. Countries will do what ever it takes to gain more land and resources, whether that be to kill innocent people, lie to their own people, work with America's so-called enemies, what ever. None of that shit matters as long as a country gains more land and resources. The more land and resources, the happier the people. ANd the people don't care how they get their shit either. They don't care how their country gets them their gas, or oil, or anything. As long as people have what they have, they're happy, and they'll also be as patriotic as possible for they're country to show just how happy they are to have their luxuries and they're so-called culture. And anyone who tries to explain how their country got those luxuries, is hated. Deemed unAmerican.

People in society seem to be so oblivuous to reality, living their lives either believing that we are a true "civilized" people, and other nations are a bit primitive, so they deserve what havoc we give them. Or believing in all these far fetched and meaningless conspiracy ideas against this country. Humans are animals, There are no true civilized people. We pretend we are, but the majority is far from it. There is no real order in any society, only the belief that their is. We have what we have in this country because of primitive, animalistic behavior, now we live today believing that we're different now, and better than other nations. Yeah right. If Bush is an idiot, so what. If Moore exaggerates the truth, so what. The fact is, we are no different than any other country that we say is bad or primitive. Only, we're bigger and have more stuff, and more time to think and question shit. Which makes the government have to do things more slick, to keep the people believing in the country.

Just be glad your over here than anywhere else. Anyways, thats my two-cents. I prolly sound like a ass. I'm only saying what I know.

-C

[bat]

I agree with 90% of what Chris just said to a point; media sources. In America our news sources are terribly biased, beyond a reasonable point in my opinion, however in *some* other countries there are unbiased sources of media, some of which do portray the ugly truth of this country and this world. I have personally experienced this through extended travel abroad. Also be thankful that our media isn't *too* biased, things could always be worse.

b a t

[maldrin]

a nod and a bow to chris and bat. preach it! I hear ya!.


maldrin

[JoshuaTheJames]

You guys will know NOTHING until you see Spider-man 2!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

-Joshua

[Rhaucan]

Good points made by Chris there I would have liked to have made myself. One of the things that stuck with me most from the film was "people think they know, but they don't", pretty baisic statement but something I think everyone could do with hearing once in a while. I'm from the UK and I havn't had any previous experience of any of the moore stuff. I've been lucky enough to be ignorant of american politics, the coruptness of the world, in general of current affairs related to terrorism and the Iraq war etc. It made me feel sick that I had been making statements on this all like I knew it all though. The main feeling that film left me with was thankfullness, for everything I have, that I can just go and touch on these issues when it suits me, and then return to my ignorance and drawing. And i'm thankfull that these issues don't affect my life apart from in how much time i give to them,. Ofcourse i'm encouraged to take more of an interest in all these issues now, but I have the option of when I become involved in it. But also that if i'm going to enjoy such a trouble free life, that its the least I can do to make it the best I an be, perfect my abilities etc, and on that note time for some more drawing.

[Burning-Robot]

I think Moore lies. If you really want to keep an "open mind" as Jason said I think you should read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)


Bush flew the Bin Laden family out of the US on 9/13, right? Nope

Not president Bush's decision...Richard Clarke's (a published Bush critic) decision. Once again, Moore's own source proves him wrong.

"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request," he explained.

In May, Clarke confessed that he, and he alone made the decision to approve the flyouts.

A desperate Moore-fan has to really scramble over this one yet again to find some excuse for Moore to somehow not be lying here. But Clarke leave no room for honest mistake here.

"It didn’t get any higher than me,” he told The Hill newspaper. "On 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

and...

"But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure"

But what about Bush and Sadi Arabia? Nope

"Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda."

"Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm."

But what about the oil pipe line in Afg-? Nope

"Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington."


Moore is a liar and beliving his lies doesnt make you "open minded" or "objective" or "a true Patriot" Questioning the Govt. is great but dont forget to question everyone else.

Also check out http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

[seb]

i don't think posting the findings of a site devoted to disproving moore makes sense as a persuasive arguement; much like posting the arguements of michael moore's site to prove otherwise. personally i dont see the big deal in disproving moore... if no one believed a word out of his mouth or wasnt curious, no one would have seen his movie. obviously it has hit some sort of nerve in some americans.

[Burning-Robot]

Seb, I think you should take some time to come up with a real response to the facts I have presented, rather than just dismiss me. My point is Moore is a liar, whats your point?

[seb]

my point is that you cant take information from places like michaelmooreisamoron.com or michaelmooreisagenius.com and present it as both credible and unbiased. personally i have no desire to take part in a partisian pissing contest again seeing as how most other ones become shouting matches(although some people do take the time to compose coherent and courteous posts). i just noticed too that you registered to make those two posts. thats a pretty smart idea to use in engaging in sensitive topics.

[Octave13]

I've seen the movie twice. There's nothing I can say that Helium hasn't already said better than I ever possibly could. I'm sure someone can make an argument for every point made in the movie, but Bush has far too many skeletons that he keeps trying, unsuccessfully, to keep in the closet. The fact alone that he vehemently refuses to answer the "hard questions" is proof enough to me that he's guilty. Couple that with the fact that he can barely string enough words together to form a coherent sentence, and I'm utterly convinced that this dipshit isn't in any position to lead.

Give it time, in a few years, maybe he'll even be held accountable for the blatant reaming he's giving this country. I can dream, at least.

[Burning-Robot]

I dont see how this can turn into a "partisian pissing contest" Saying Moore is a liar and presenting proof doesnt have anything to do with political party affiliation. Many Democrats say "I agree with what Moore is trying to do but his lies and half-truths do nothing but discredit us." And I agree with them.

You said "my point is that you cant take information from places like michaelmooreisamoron.com or michaelmooreisagenius.com and present it as both credible and unbiased." But re-read the first part in my first post. It contains nothing but quotes from Richard Clarke (a published Bush critic) and he says that he was the one who flew out the Saudis, not Bush. A published Bush critic is saying this. This information is credible and unbiased.

No need to start a shouting match, I'm just clarifiying my point and asking you to clarify yours. Have a nice day.

[Jason Manley]

The movie brought up a lot of things which we all need to be aware of. Yes, it was slanted, but it makes us go and look further into the information we have in order to understand what is truly going on. we are not all mindless people. we can take the information from both sides and make up our minds for ourselves. My mind is made up. Im voting for kerry. I did not make that decision based on the movie. However, certain points made during that film definitely solidified that decision even more.

the homeland security act has to go. i doubt it will...but it has to. I heard a computer manufacturer today talking about a phone call they got for equipment in regards to the fed's flying over cities and snatching everything they can from wireless airwaves...the joke was they were stealing credit card info but the fact is that it is an invasion of our privacy as citizens. I am tired of it. Moore's points about the act were valid.

one of the primary reasons bush and his regime need to go is personal for me. Stem Cel research is something which can help people more than anything in medical science right now. A few years ago, my best friends grandmother had a stroke. She went from a grumpy old lady to a slightly paralyzed woman with the mind of a six year old. She spent two years like that...going thru physical therapy and basically being happy regardless of her situation. I remember showing her artwork to get her responses because they were so honest and childlike. After two years she was flown to boston for a limited research program in stem cel research and its applications. Stem cels can become any cel in the body. To my understanding, they injected raw stem cels to the part of her brain which was damaged. The next morning she awoke (with the newspaper press there) and her mind was sound again. within days, she was literally back to where she was before she had the stroke. The theory was that the new cels had removed the roadblocks of the dead cels...at least that is how I understand it. she completely recovered from BRAIN DAMAGE. while the press was there...the first thing out of her mouth was..."I want to have sex" LOL. True story. This is the kind of thing that can help many sick people. Too bad the christian right opposes it. Strangely the person it helped whom I know is part of a family of hard core jehovas witnesses. The reason she suffered as much damage as she did was because they did not want to take her to the hospital for religious reasons. After the fact, they were given a second chance. The program works. It needs to be allowed to continue to do so.

[seb]

partisian pissing contest is somewhat of a misnomer, i agree. i made a generalization of the people that have conflicting and most likely unchanging opinions on moore and the related topics of president bush, the war in iraq, etc. it seems that people either think moore brings up some interesting ideas or that everything out of his mouth is complete and utter bs. i think that it is rash to throw the proverbial baby out with bathwater and claim that his movie is nothing but fabrications and lies; conversely i think that it is a sign of not being able to think for one's self if you take his movie as being the absolute truth. i agree with a republican national stategist that fahrenheit 911 is just entertainment for people that dislike bush. to continue with that thought, what type of people seriously expect to go to the local cinema to catch up on current events?

these threads really don't accomplish much. the previous ones have been people going after bush or moore or agreeing with someone else or saying something inane. it goes no where even though some people take the time to post long and thought out replies. and i doubt that there is any piece of information that will make people change their minds either way. one downside of the polarization of american.... lets hope that we dont repeat what happened the last time this country was so divided.

[Groover McNab]

Bush actually gave a speech praising stem cell research and talking about all the good it can do, then then pretty much says "BUT my religious beliefs..."

Pretty silly. But I'm sure you can make up your own mind...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

[seb]

religion has no place in dictating how the rest of us should live. there is nothing wrong with religious beliefs, but once they are imposed on others, something should be done. i believe it has to do with some people's strong belief that we are a christian nation and that they know what is best for us. that is dangerous dangerous stuff.

[Grooveholmes]

True Seb, Fact is.. this IS NOT a christian nation. It is a nation with christians in it. This power play by the religious right that is going on has me exasperated and fearful of a new impending dark age.

[Helium Macaroni]

Slanted as it was, lies if there were, the most telling scene that sums up this mans agenda was given no pretext or facts to be hashed out or disputed. He stands in his tuxedo at podium in front of a pristine audience and states:

"This is an impressive crowd -- the haves ... and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base."

Signed, sealed, delivered.

[MrSmith]

FOR THE MOMENT YOU"VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR, MY REVIEW!!!!

didn't like the beginning or end, but liked the middle. it was biased of course, but i think thats pretty much a given. i'm sure there will be anti-farenheit movies out soon. in a world without unbiased news sources, the best we can hope for is for wackos on both sides to balance each other out.

the good:
The Iraq war parts [edit: the largest part of the movie i might add] were the best. he made the best points here. wether deliberate or a mistake, it was still the wrong decision and Bush should be held accountable. and i'm a guy who was for the war, and now think was a total mistake. Bush has fucked up or lied in nearly every way imaginable.

the way our shit media in this country reports the news. a disgrace. when they report that X soldiers were wounded, that means X soldiers had limbs blown off and other horrible injuries, not just scratches.



the 'meh':
the florida election. i've seen articles that say bush wins in every recount, and moore shows some articles that say gore did. All anyone knows for sure is that the whole thing was a dirty embarrassing mess for both sides and the country. get rid of the electoral system.

9/11-afghanistan. All he convinced me here is that Bush is a typical politician. A royal fuckwad that is too tied to corporate money (in this case the sauds) to care for what the people want (but what politician isn't?). He failed to show any link whatsoever connecting the saudis (including the bin ladin family) to Osama bin Laden. what's he trying to say, anyway, that Bush conspired with Osama to cause 9/11? that since Bush was born the Saudis were planning a takeover of the white house? Is it all for oil or military contracts or both and if so how can Bush be considered anything but brilliant for pulling off such a convolluted conspiracy? one minute he says the reason we went after afghanistan was to appease a bloodthirsty public, the next he says its because of a pipeline. Nothing really matches up. He isn't really saying anything here. he's just throwing a lot of conspiracy theories at the wall to see what sticks. also some of the facts were wrong i hear. Halliburton didnt have that contract to build a pipeline through afghanistan, but a contract to build a rival pipeline through Iran.


the bad:

the rich vs. poor bullshit. i didn't know people could sign their kids up for military service. that whole congressman recruiting stuff was populist garbage. the fact is that as long as the poor view the military as a way out, poor people will make up the majority of the military. why would a wealthy kid join the military? other than to serve his country, there is no logical reason. it was this way before Bush, and it won't change in a million years, and just because you don't have a kid in the military doesnt mean you are incapable of making military decisions.

i was put off by how he made out the soldiers to be total assholes in parts. talking about what music they play as they go into a fight, and interlacing it with civilian casualties is pure propaganda bullshit. Whether you agree with them or not, they believed they were going in to kill the bad guys. I'd be pretty psyched about that, too. I'd be blasting out metal music while killing evil terrorists by the dozen with a smile on my face. they are definately naive, but not callous. and despite the slanted view of the movie, the majority of the military will be voting republican next election.

I think the only thing i came out of the movie with is the opinion that the problem is much larger than Bush. Its systemic. Getting him out of office won't change much.


Oh well, Britney for president!

[Helium Macaroni]

What's garbage about populism?

[MrSmith]

oh noes! those evil rich people are out to eat your babies!!!

[Helium Macaroni]

Really, I'm not so much concerned with them eating my babies as I am concerned about them polluting the planet in which my children shall inherit, forcing the disparity between the haves and the have-nots so that my children will not have the opportunities I and those like me have been afforded and an increasingly distant political elitism that further marginalizes the lower and middle classes to the point of apathy and ignorance. Not that rich individuals themselves are at fault for those precise infractions, but the corporations they own have a significant role in the majority of the world?s ills, and their greed (generalization) tips societal structures from the ideal of equality to the acquisition of further wealth. As can be noted from history, the wealthy and powerful are remarkable advocates of the status quo, consequentially involving themselves in initiatives that allow them to acquire additional wealth, coincidentally at the expense of the significantly less wealthy segments of the population. Being that 90% of the nations wealth is owned by less than 10% of the population, I would deduce that the struggles and cause of populism are more than relevant in creating a system, both governmentally and socio-economically that is more equitable to the general population and not concentrating such wealth at the top tier who then in turn influence policy to suit their agendas. I doubt that it can be denied that such an existent upper echelon of society has made no infraction against the lower classes when it comes to issues of economic growth. In fact I would argue that the majority of the world suffers due to the inherent nature of capitalism, which populism tends to argue the reining in of. Not that capitalism is inherently an evil system as preached by certain ideologues, but as for any economic structure is fair game for the vices of humanity to have free play with. Populism argues from the point of the oppressed or the "masses", which may be tired Marxist phraseology, but offers a legitimate point dealing with any scenario from macro-economic issues as world trade, to local phenomena of available assistance for the homeless or de-institutionalized. Being that populism is the antithesis of elitism or aristocracy (which could both be argued to exist in this nation) I would assume that the theoretical basis as well as the practical application or social goal of populism is well legitimized.

Indeed the historical fact of the poor being the backbone of the military has remained. This I think would reinforce the notion of the relevance and reach of populism. I think it?s rather undeniable that a system comprised of oligarchs, whether in intention or by coincidence, would not inherently utilize the energy of a marginalized class. Sub par public education and elimination of the domestic job base, along with the under funding of public health and infrastructure neglect, destroys the primary progressive mechanism in an upwardly mobile society. Who might be responsible for the policies that ignore the poor and the dispossessed? Who would trade public good for increased profit margins? Who has the most to gain not only from a system that inherently keeps the lowest in their place, while reaping the enormous payoffs from service cuts and price gouging, but also gains when public funds are redirected towards a private sector through tax cuts and federal subsidies? Who holds all the money when the issue of campaign finance is raised? Who controls the lobbying power to affect policy towards the removal of environmental protection or workers rights? Who sits on the boards of major defense contractors, who directly gain from the utilization of massively expensive weapons systems at the expense of public funding? Who sits on the boards of major media corporations and conversely in the seats of the capitol, the white house and the highest court? One may argue the romanticism or naiveté of class warfare or the notions of populism. But when dissected and broken down to facts of who is in control and who is subjugated, whether it be militarily or economically, those who profit at the expense of the land, human life, and democracy are indeed to blame. Call them the rich, call them the elite, call them plutocrats or oligarchs, they stand atop the majority of the world's population who subsist on less than a dollar a day, acquiring markets, wealth and power, failing to redirect much needed funds and resources towards the ills of humanity, in turn for profit. If I have to choose who to rally behind, those who would hope and work for a progressive campaign of social, economic and political equality, or those who would turn a blind eye to the plight of the dispossessed and embrace social Darwinism, I shall indeed be in support of the previous.

[Helium Macaroni]

oye.. sorry I've done it again.

[MrSmith]

ok this thread is about to take a major turn into intellectual masturbation.

but before i start, i would separate the terms "rich" and "elite". anyway...

I dont disagree with you on much of what you say. I do disagree with this belief that the wealthy only become so at the expense of "the land, human life, and democracy". In many cases this is true, in many it isn't. In any case, 90% of the wealth in 10% percent of the population is grossly inefficient to be sure. However, generalization in the form of populism ultimately does little to combat the problem.

IMO populism is little more than a typical "us vs. them" oversimplification used to herd the masses around by greedy individuals in search of their own power. Too often supposed populists aren't interested in the public welfare at all.

"Its their fault things are like this, not yours" is a big lie told over and over again by all kinds of revolutionaries when trying to gain their own power. This is the cheap political tactic politicians and others (like Moore) often resort to that I have a problem with. I have a problem with the fake revolutionaries who use populism to simply replace one power class with another and call it progress.

Populist rhetoric does not ease the suffering of the masses, it only gives the masses a villain to blame and a belief that if "they" were somehow removed from power, everything would be great. For a small portion of the masses, maybe it would be better, as they would form the new power class. But most would just be shuffled back into the pool to await the next rebel to lead them to nowhere.

In this case, Moore often sinks to populist rhetoric to appeal to people's emotions, not their intelligence. I think this is a form of talking down to the viewer (and somewhat elitist I might add). He doesn't even need to do it, the facts presented often speak for themselves. The stunt of chasing down congressmen is a cheap trick.

I wrote some more, but I'm saving it for my manifesto to be published independantly from my shack in Montana.

[Rhaucan]

I once would have claimed that all these contrasting ideologies, motives, beliefs, particularly the self-serving ones all balance out and provide the best political balance and a healthy way of life. I'm realising how, like populalism, naive this is. It clearly isn't that balanced. The michael moore film at point left me in despair and a sense of helplessness, at the fact that such corruptness, such oligarchy exists in the most powerful individual positions on the planet. But then what to be done, do I go out an join the protesters, dedicate my life to an ideological fix in belief that all can be solved. Maybe you don't have to think that all will be solved, but just that these errors can't go unprotested. Do people make a difference, It'd be fair to say Michael Moore has, but then it seems that any intelligence that gains levels of influence or power also gains ulterior motives, I wonder if the two are directly proportional. I'll get my graph paper.

[Burning-Robot]

Slanted as it was, lies if there were, the most telling scene that sums up this mans agenda was given no pretext or facts to be hashed out or disputed. He stands in his tuxedo at podium in front of a pristine audience and states:

"This is an impressive crowd -- the haves ... and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base."

Signed, sealed, delivered.

I would call this a half truth, Moore left out information hopeing the viewer would fill in the peices with wrong information. Let me guess, you thought Bush was talking to his supporters at a political fundraiser? Nope, Thats just what Moore wanted you to think. The truth is Bush was a guest speaker at a charity fundraiser. What a monster! Everyone there was giving away part of their fortune to help others, including Al Gore, who was there at the time. Is Al Gore part of the Bush "elite-base?"

[Helium Macaroni]

Was he still speaking to millionaires that choose to affect policy by the sway of their money? Indeed Al Gore may have been in the mix. I'd like to know who else was at the ceremony to further clarify the position. Regardless of the situation, he's speaking to the elite and the rich. He then clarifies that they are his base. Even the Heritage Foundation has charitable events; I'd think that the majority of such a crowd would be staunch backers of his more -neo-conservative agendas. I know that even when fundraisers, charities or media dinners are held with members of the administration, they still invite the likes of Al Franken. I'm sure he doesn't agree with half the things said by the hosts of such an event. Whether it's Al Gore, or Rupert Murdoch in the room, I would choose that those in the top 10% of the population not solely be the group that dictates his policy. Speaking even from within the context, the statement is telling. He states that the rich and elite are his base, which I have known for a while, which doesn't make this the smoking gun that it would appear to be for lesser informed individuals, it's simply further evidence.

I'd be rather interested in knowing who composed the group to which he was speaking. If you have any sources of it's make up, I'd love to see them.

[Burning-Robot]

One quick question, why would Bush announce his secret neo-con agenda in front of the cameras?

[Lono]

Bush says a lot of dumb things in front of cameras.

-Lono

[Pencil Soldier]

I've said some dumb things in front of cameras.

Sorry, that was stupid.

[RoamDog]

"spreading terror throughout western society"

hahaha

is this the same thing as crop dusting?

hahah sorry just sounds funny.

was Saddam going to spread terror by shaving both sides of his stash? lol

[acuna_read]

I havent read all these (some of first and last page only), but from reviews (admittedly and ironically from TV and magazines) everyone bases their view around whether they are for or against Michael Moore. Thats not worded correctly but ill lay out my point below.

Lots of people (all over the world) seem to be completely brainwashed by their version of the media, and they take this as gospel. I realise its very hard to make a decision on something without actually seeing/experiencing it for yourself. But we ARE allowed to sit on the fence and reseve judgement.
Basically I wish the majority of people would use their brains and make their own mind up.

Personally I dont mind what your government does, the world works for me as it is with a roof over my head access to this and living a reasonable life, I dont however like the deceitfulness mine (and the US) government have done on many fronts. A shame they cant answer questions as people instead of politicians which they are forced to do.

Sorry for going slightly off-topic. Not a big film buff and never got into Columbine, so will put it on my 'to rent' list. In the mean time Everyone (you US giys too) go and buy 'The League of Gentlemen' which is a hilarious and very dark british comedy series. It is unique and very dark, most of you gourish(sp) guys would love it! :nod:

[AmishCommy]

man-o-man!!!

I guess because someone moved this thrad i havent been getting any updates and i totaly missed the part whereit grew to over 4 pages. It'll take me some time to read the all the posts. but i have to reply to Pencil Soldier's post from the first page. That comment about Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen. It was the only way to unite a contry to fight in WWII. Why would Americans go fight Hitler and Japan when they had not waged war on America? Now in retrospect, the sacrifice of about 3000 people at Pearl Harbor did get america involved in WWII which I will say helped turn the tides of that war. and although I dont condone the sacrifice of 3000 lives, it was in a sence for the better. Maybe when we're in our 70's and 80's we'll be able to look at September 11th, 2001 one and say that the sacrifice of 3000 inicent lives on that day was for the better of the world. Right now all i can say is that Bush's pupet masters are doing a good job at isolating America to its pre-WWII days. Some may see it as a good thing. I look at it as going back on decades of progress.

I love it when Republicans call Michael Moore and Liberals like myself unpatriotic. I belive myself to be a very patriotic person. I actualy belive in the idealism on which America was founded. Hell, my family and I left our home country, friends and family, to come to America, to come to the unknown and embraced America and its culture, and embraced the idealism. The reason I'm so piised off is that I've come to a realization is that idealism was never achieved and is shitted upon daily. Excuse me for not supporting the killing of inocent arabs, insiting people against our country, and shitting on the people that keep the country a super power (the poor and the middle class- here's a simple realization: the poor die in wars to protect this country from made up enemies, the middle class pay for it all, and the rich buy 70ft yahts while pissing on the poor and the middle class)


Please take the time to read this (http://www.arkadyroytman.com/propagandaART2003-04-23.html).

[diagetus]

I have heard many here talk about making your own informed decision about the political parties and presidential candidates. However, I didn't see any posts which point viewers in any direction as far as political information sites. This could be a thread hijack, but I thought my post would fit in here better than anywhere else.

I think there are four major areas that needed to be examined by any voter who wishes to do their own research.

First, a voter needs to read through the current platform of each political party. If there is no platform available in written or oral form, that voter should not bother voting for that party.

Next, a voter should look at the presidential candidates platform. This is not always synonymous with the party they are running under. A party/candidate platform is kind of like their resume. It's a rough statement of what that person stands for. Would you hire anyone without reading their resume or interviewing them? Never the less, politicians rarely ever out-right state their platforms. [aside-This is something I've never understood. It's probably the most important job in the country and the people applying for it rarely give you any idea how they will vote on upcoming legislation or the real makeup of their "plans"]. You have to gather bits and pieces here and there (something a working person has very little time for).

Third, the voter should look at what legislation is coming up and listen to the candidates' statements on how they would vote or what legislation they would pass. You need to know what is coming up because if a candidate is a strong advocate or opposer for an issue and that issue isn't coming up in the next four years, then that is an irrelevant point. A president can't pass something that is never offered up to him. i.e.- nonexistent legislative proposals don't effect us.

Fourth, every voter should watch the electoral debates. This is often the only immeadiate way to determine who the appropriate candidate is. The debates crystalize many of the disagreements between the competing candidates, thereby allowing you to see through the enigmatic campaign mist and make a clear cut decision.

Now, I'm going to help point you in the right direction for the two main parties in this year's election.

Republican Party - www.gop.com -(GOP usually stands for "grand old party")
Democratic Party - www.johnkerry.com OR www.democrats.org

At these sites you can read the platform of each party and where the president and the presidential candidate stand on general issues. I'm not sure what site you can go to in order to find a calendar of bills and other legislative events that are coming up over the next four years, but perhaps someone else can post a link about that....

Hope this helps some people out.

[MrSmith]

headline story as depicted in 9/11

http://67.19.19.67/images/uploads/pantagraph_f911.jpg

actual letter to the editor (not a news story at all)

http://www.moorewatch.com/images/uploads/pantagraph_full.jpg

A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

It's certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.


bush is an asshole, moore is an asshole.

[seb]

* If a recount had been performed under the standards of a 1996 Texas election law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, Gore might have won by 42 votes. The Texas law provides that a vote should be counted if it reflects "a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter," including dimpled chads and overvotes on optically scanned ballots.

http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story

[MrSmith]

that only proves my point the the archaic and cobbled together voting system in america makes it impossible to accurately predict a winner in an election as tight as that one.

For Moore to say absolutely that Bush stole the election is absurd. especially when the only evidence he presents is a doctored news article.

[Helium Macaroni]

Though it may be absurd to judge the election stolen solely on the basis of miscounted votes, one might take into account the amount of fraud, role manipulation, and intimidation that also impacted the outcome.

[Spacemanchuck]

dang!!!

[frosty]

Michael Moron I say.

[Grooveholmes]

Michael Moron I say.

Wow frosty, did you make that up yourself. U R SMRAT.

I challenge you frosty to tell us why you think he's such a moron. Tell us. And no, "Because Bill O'reilly tells me so." Is not a valid response.

[Groover McNab]

nor is I saw it on fox news, or I heard it from my dad, or I heard from a dumbass country song...

[Helium Macaroni]

I concur with the Grooves.

[Grooveholmes]

Though it may be absurd to judge the election stolen solely on the basis of miscounted votes, one might take into account the amount of fraud, role manipulation, and intimidation that also impacted the outcome.


Not to mention the mainly conservative Supreme Court HALTING the counting twice in order to ensure that a final tally would not be finished before the final deadline.

[MrSmith]

hearing a moore supporter complain that conservatives mindlessly follow o'reilly, fox news, or country song is incredibly ironic. and hilarious.

and moore is something of a moron, or at least a bad debater. Moore vs. O'Reilly last night was funny. it was like watching dumb and dumber.

i noticed no one bothered to reply to moore's "article" above.

[Groover McNab]

I guess so. Playing the reversing game is also hilarious. Let me try

Hearing an O'Reilly supporter complain that liberals mindlessly follow Moore is incredibly ironic, and hilarious.

Hey that was fun!!!

I fail to see how
" nor is I saw it on fox news, or I heard it from my dad, or I heard from a dumbass country song..."

makes me a mindless Micheal Moore supporter, but whatever :nohope:

[MrSmith]

funny, i didnt think calling someone michael moron as that guy above automatically makes him a o'reilly supporter.

and me? i don't like o'reilly, moore, garafolo, rush limbaugh or any of the hundreds of other extremist clones. i don't see the difference. and i'll probably vote for kerry (could change). but moore's lies are no better than bush's or anyone elses.

corruption went both ways in florida, the republicans just had home field advantage.

[Groover McNab]

Fair enough. I'm speaking through personal experience, so it was unfair to Frosty to lump him in with fox watching, country singing, o' reilly supporters that I know. The vagueness of his comment triggered a response as I'm sure if someone just posted "Bush sucks cack" would've.

I wish I could've seen that debate though, that would be entertaining as hell. infuriating, but entertaining.

Edit: That was a fun exchange though MrSmith, I enjoyed that a little bit :D
I like your list too. Looks like we actually might agree on more things than I originally thought.

[MrSmith]

don't sweat it. i ramble like a crackhead half the time anyway :)

[frosty]

I don't care for O'Reilly or Fox News
or country music or my Dad or Rush

I don't really have the energy to get into
this about Moore, and I like open
forum discussions, I don't wish to start out in a
flame war here, this seems like a nice place to
hang out and I hope you let me stay a spell. :)

[RoamDog]

myself, i don't ilke bush for several reasons.
first and formost, is because he always remindes me of a monkey.

the rest hardly matter.

[stalecracker]

...and the truth shall set you free. It's a lot to read... but it IS worth it.

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

[Groover McNab]

Just out of curiosity, do the people that try to disprove "facts" in Moore's movie (it's obviously a slanted view, so lets throw all that aside) think Bush has done a good job? Disregarding any dislike for Moore.

[stalecracker]

Yes, I think he has and is doing a good job.

[Pencil Soldier]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-07-25-1.html

Read the whole thing. It's quite interesting. And no it's not propaganda or anything. It makes you think. Or at least, it makes me think.

[Groover McNab]

Yes, I think he has and is doing a good job.

Can you site some specific examples of why you think that? I wanna hear what you have to say.

[Helium Macaroni]

Alrighty.. you like the guy, lets get some reasons. Lets try something policy driven. Maybe address your like of particular programs or initiatives taken. Try to site the program, such as the No Child Left Behind program. I'd really be interested in knowing some point-by-point breakdown of why you are fond of him. Maybe you are completely legitimized in your favoring; maybe you'll convert a few doubters, but let's get some reasons related to policy.

I can list program by program what I dislike, I'd like to see you do just the same for what you do like, I would find that extremely interesting.

[Helium Macaroni]

Wow, that article did make me think.... It makes me think that Orson Scott Card is more of a nimrod than I ever knew, how disappointing. To make the comparison that the circumstances that drove Lincoln were anywhere near similar to what has driven Bush is outrageous. It indeed was a very interesting article, and very persuasive if one takes its vague assertions as history. I can hem and haw about the differences in circumstance, policy, and driving personal loyalties, but one might take a look at a book by Mario Cuomo, called "Why Lincoln Matters : Today More Than Ever" You may find a very different argument in there, something to counteract this particular article so that a center might be found. Again, this article was fascinating, and I think has some interesting points which can act as reason to reconsider a negative stance on Bush. I, at moments, felt swayed. However I don't think this article takes certain underlying historical truths into account. I think there are significant generalizations that don't address the nuances of the time, the events, or the persons involved. Interesting read though.

[frosty]

My view is a skewed one of Bush, I fence ride and prolly will right up to polls and prolly will vote Bush. More along the reason of personal issues than what He and Company have done. What I mean is along the lines of standard Reb. policy, a Candidate who is not prochoice to some extent, not pro-gay and pro gun control. Many things Dubya has done really bothers me, and not protecting American jobs from drifting overseas by the thousands is one.

I noticed in Kerry’s speech the other night, he boasted of creating and exploring new forms of energy, but did not say how, he talked about limiting big business from its perch of authority and at the same time talked about stimulating the avenues for stock market investments? I thought his speech writers did ok, but it was all a typical political speech, and what I mean is, a nebulous approach that can’t fully grasp what, where or how he is going to do what he is to do and so on…….

He talks about getting soldiers home soon, but leaving a stable Iraq too, this is so stupid it is almost funny, whether he or Bush gets in office, Iraq will never be stable, it will be a pisshole for killers, radicals, mercenaries & religious freaks for yrs to come.

Thus, this brings me to has Bush done a good job? It is hard to tell, the Dems blamed him for a faltering economy right off, even though leading economic indicators already showed we were slumping down quick. Then 911 and we went into two wars in two countries I don’t care much about. It was like a rolling snowball effect and now frosty the snowman has gotten a little big for his breeches. I think we need to put on the brakes before invading Iran.

But one thing haunts me at the back of my mind, what if the Bush policies were right and we did the right thing by spear pointing Terrorists and thwarting their plans? What if we’d laid back like old women after 911, like some think we should have and then one of our major cities was hit with a suitcase nuke & millions were killed. What if?

Hard questions.

[Helium Macaroni]

Whelp, I can list here's a list of reasons not to vote for Bush again:

No Child Left behind, based on a failed Texas education reform.
Removal from the Kyoto accords Global Warming.
Allowing heavier logging and drilling in National Parks.
Enacting special tax exemptions for SUVs to be classified as Trucks as to allow for relaxed emission standards.
The tax cut for the wealthiest in the nation.
The prescription drug program which was sought by the major pharmaceuticals.
Limitation of Stem Cell research.
Creation of Faith Based social services instead of allotting money towards genuine urban renewal or social benefits.
Helping to limit the rights of plaintiffs against HMO's.
Providing far below the minimum needed funding for AIDS prevention in Africa.
Cutting aid to nations that to not advocate abstinence-only AIDS prevention
Not being astute enough to take the warnings of terrorism seriously prior to 9/11 (this is debatable)
Squandering worldwide respect and sympathy for America post 9/11
Waging needless war, based on lies against a sovereign nation that was of no threat.

There's oh so much more..

Sooo.. I can't say Kerry's speech was extremely descriptive either, however if you ever listen to the bulk of his stump speech on CSPAN he explains a bit better. You can probably log on to JohnKerry.com and get some semblance of an answer. I could also argue that the issues you state as reasons to stay with the Republican Party aren't terribly important issues. In my opinion the most real issue is that of economic equality and opportunity. We can shout until our faces are blue about issues such as abortion, but argument won't change ethical predisposition. However, the issues that are of greater importance, at least in terms of effecting people on a very personal level are economic ones. I disagree with Bush?s entire stance on those particular issues. So all I can do is just ask you to look at a different part of the debate, instead of looking at issues that don't very much differ with each candidate, take gun control and gay marriage. Plech.. I don't want to turn this into a moral debate so let's not even take a swing at abortion. But I would argue that the particular issues that differ vastly according to the respective candidates in terms of economic policy are much more relevant to your life than the moral issues. Just a thought. Most of what you listed as reasons to vote for Bush are fairly divisive subjects meant to polarize and lump people into a base which will be a default solid hold for that particular party, ignoring some more pressing issues at hand. Both parties do it. I just think that what some politicians and parties support in order to form wedge issues distracts from the more relevant differences exhibited by candidates. Some particular wedge issues are race, religion, guns, gays, etc. Well, nothing is going to change anyone?s thoughts on those particular issues, so maybe we have to look to what is flexible, such as economic policy, which effects people in a more concrete way, even day to day. Ugh, it's late and I'm not coherent.

But I think that whole, "what if we had laid down after 9/11" thing is a bit silly. I don't think anyone was suggesting that. Anyone opposed to the war in Afghanistan, which was kept largely secret, was simply opposed to bombing the tar out of innocent people that could do nothing to stop elements inside their country who weren?t even technically in charge. What I and some of my compatriots suggested was to find the real source of such terror, namely funding. The sources of such funding are what require military action in my opinion, equally with action against specific militant groups. Military or maybe paramilitary options are of course warranted when needing to round up actual offenders, I'm not debating that, justice must be served, but try attacking the cause and not just the symptom. Half of the reason such people as Islamic fundamentalists hate us is because of policies that we either directly engage in or support that effects their culture and populations. Maybe we as a nation can look at those policies and reevaluate their consequences. Half of the problems causing such rage against us originate from the policies of our government carried out for half a century against their people, no wonder they?re pissed. The other half of the war on terror in my opinion should be HEAVY reinforcement of domestic systems such as infrastructure, police, first response, port security and other measures to be enacted within the nation itself. Also intelligence should be beefed up, and military intervention should be provided by an international task force, be it NATO or some sort of coalition that?s not just willing, but effective and equally comprised of other nations. Remember that the whole world views us as having wasted an enormous opportunity after 9/11. The rest of the world stood in solidarity, but we threw that out the window when we invaded Iraq. That alone is HUGELY important to a global war on terror. We cannot possibly maintain such a struggle ourselves, and we need heavy players such as France, Germany, Russia, etc, regardless of how we may think that we don't.

I have no doubt that any person in the place of Bush would have acted with equal or greater grace-under-pressure. Regardless of anyone?s thoughts of Al Gore, anything equal to or above that knee-jerk reaction of a response in Afghanistan would have been carried out by him had he been president. I see no different course for anyone in that situation. I would even think he may have dealt with it better, but that?s entirely speculation.

[softdrawer]

This thread seems pretty fun, a whole lot of arguments and replies...
I don't like politic very much though. I have better things to do than watch rich people try to gain votes by being full of shit on tv.

I Voted for the Communist party in Canada if I recall. Well it was the last on the list and I felt bad for it.(My friend said I should go vote anyway. I don't think they won though. Those poor commy.)

Too sad I won't be seeing any party worth listening to in my life time. Oh well, at least I have food and friends and passion toward what I do, and also love. Yeah, that's all I really need.

Oh and for whoever takes this very seriously, well you are all right. All of you, yes. Now you can feel better about yourself. ( Isn't it the only thing counts after all ? )

Later Fellas,

alx

[Helium Macaroni]

*gasp!* Validation! That's all I ever really wanted :^^:

Hehe, I had a buddy that was a registered communist for the party in the U.S. I don't know if he was ideologically instep with them, but it was certainly fun having him be a card carrying communist!

[frosty]

Pretty good points, many things I do not like Dubya doing, one main one is speaking, he says such STUPID things at times. Me wonders who is really running whom. Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice, Powell.

As far as the reaction to 911, Gore basically said he’d have done the same thing anyways. and under huge American pressure he would have certainly folded. Even if it was like taking a rocket launcher to a guy with a squirt gun hardly anyone was gonna cry about it in the US after what was done to us. Iraq is still a slight toss up to me, maybe good or maybe bad, time will tell, but the 911 reaction was fine and always will be in my book.

As far Dubya on the environment, he has surely sucked, real bad, wetlands protection, oil production methods and preservation of natural resources, the SUV stunt. Ugghhh!

But as far as the aid to African nations/whatever, it needs, aid to any other countries to be really evaluated by any President, American citizens still starve in streets and live like dogs all over and we still send billions overseas, I say take care of your own kids before you do foreign orphans. And if millions of people want to have unsafe sex why should we foot the bill? It is like saying that people who cut off limbs, we should feel sorry for and pay millions of dollars so they can have prosthesis limbs for cutting off their own arms.

Scratches head with vigor…….

[Grooveholmes]

http://www.joshball.com/gallery/albums/sketchbook/bushsuckerpunch_1.gif

[BlueMech]

PUNCH IN THE FACE ROCKS! Sucker punch or no, its still punch in the face!

[Grooveholmes]

PUNCH IN THE FACE ROCKS! Sucker punch or no, its still punch in the face!

:zzz: How old is bluemech?

[frosty]

I think the fraternity pics when he was getting drunk were funny, this one is pretty good though! :teeth:

[Grooveholmes]

Look here. I think that pic speaks volumes of who bush is at heart. Look at it... you can't tell me that it doesnt jive with his character. Look at his face, I see fear all over it. Fear and evil intentions.

[benzo]

I respectfully disagree with everything you say Helium Macaroni.


Alrighty.. you like the guy, lets get some reasons.

ok. I believe that government is inefficient and only serves a few useful purposes: Defense, Law & Order, and Currency. That is all you really need. I don't beleive that government can be compassionate.
It is an emotionless machine. Only people can be compassionate. Only people can help other people.

The bigger government gets, the more currupt, inefficient and wasteful it is. I think that our government wastes at least half of the money we put into it. I can speak from experience because I used to
work in a government building and most of the people there hardly worked and would never get fired because government jobs have no accountability. If work isn't getting done they won't fire you they will just hire another person.

So the best government is THEREFORE a small government that just operates the fundamental needs of government.

That is how the U.S. government originally was, but of course over time it has grown and grown as it has become more currupted and wasteful. The reason for this is because politicians sell a new government programs to people to
get elected and then raise taxes to pay for those programs and whether they work or not there is no accountability for them.

- President Bush is trying to trim as much fat as possible by making the government more accountable and eliminating unnecessary programs that the government should have no business in in the first place.

- He is a true leader with his own strong beliefs. He has nothing to lose and no strings attached. He does what he believes in.

- Foreign policy and Defense- Bush is decisive and will do what is right for America, even if it is unpopular with other countries. I agree with him and believe in the long run we are doing what is right. He doesn't obey the polls; he is willing to take action at his own political expence. Kerry won't do that.

- Under Bush you know that we will do whatever it takes to fight the war on terrorism. Kerry is indecisive and he may cut defense spending that is greatly needed in this day and age and in these times of war.

- The tax-cut for ALL Americans who pay income tax. I want to keep my money and spend it how I choose, not have the government waste any more of it. Under Bush we are more likely to get the cut again, but Kerry will raise taxes.

- Bush believes that a person can be responsible for his or her self and that local and state laws should be determined by their respective governments, not the federal government. Many of his programs give taxpayers a choice. Kerry will raise taxes to spend on programs that I don't want or care about.

- Under Bush, actions will be made, things will get done. The world will change for the better.
Kerry will do as little as possible to stay popular; it will be a mobocracy. He will try to please everybody and more problems will arise out of the stagnation.



Whelp, I can list here's a list of reasons not to vote for Bush again:

No Child Left behind, based on a failed Texas education reform.

What part of the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't make sense to you? Don't you think that a school should be held accountable for how well it teaches it's students?
Don't you think that a taxpayer should have the choice of where to send his or her child to school? Shouldn't proven educational methods be used instead of unproven ones?

Our education system is failing because there is no competitiveness between schools. This act changes that. The biggest problem I always saw in public schools is that teachers who didn't give a crap couldn't get fired because of certain union laws that protected them after they had taught for a certain amount of years.


Removal from the Kyoto accords Global Warming.

First of all, Global Warming is an unproven theory, but it should be taken seriously. The Kyoto Accords were really a joke. It could not be enforced, only a few nations were signed on to it, and their economies suffered because of it. So we ditched it in order to keep competitive within a global economy. Is the sky going to fall now? I have faith that technology will reduce the threat of global warming in the years to come. Besides that, the U.S. is already doing more than most countries to reduce emissions and be "green". Go to Mexico City or Cairo; it's the countries that have no
enforced emission laws at all that worry me.



Allowing heavier logging and drilling in National Parks.

Is it alright for another country's natural resources to be exploited and not our own? Oil is a valuable resource that we absolutely depend on too heavily from other countries.
And Nature has a way of fixing itself.... trees grow back. I am looking forward to the days of affordable fuel cells, but right now we need to use these resources.


Enacting special tax exemptions for SUVs to be classified as Trucks as to allow for relaxed emission standards.

I don't like SUV's and think most of them are a waste, and I am not too familiar with this act. But this doesn't seem like a very big deal to me.... what is the difference between an SUV and a truck? Most of them share the same engine and base and guzzle the same amount of gas.....



The tax cut for the wealthiest in the nation.

That's a funny play of words.... especially since it was a tax cut for EVERYONE. Every American who paid income taxes recieved a cut. About 150 Million Americans....
and if you look at the charts on the link I have provided below as my source, you will see that more people in the lower and middle classes are benefiting from this cut than the RICH are:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/tenpercentbracket.html

Personally, I feel that since we are all legally equal in this country, that there should be one tax for everyone. It would make things simple and fair. It seems like a lot of people on here HATE RICH PEOPLE because they are rich. That is not right. I'm not rich but I know a lot of great people who are very wealthy, and you shouldn't judge someone by that. There
are a lot of rich assholes and brats out there who didn't even earn their wealth, but someone related to them did. You should respect that. There is sooooo much opportunity in this country and when I read you talk about populism I just feel like you are too negative and you don't appreciate the great opportunity you have by living here right now.



The prescription drug program which was sought by the major pharmaceuticals.

Sounds good to me. What don't you like about it besides the EVIL CORPORATION reason? I want to be able to choose.



Limitation of Stem Cell research.

I kind of disagree with this too, but the main reason is to make cloning humans illegal. I'm all for curing diseases and growing organs, but cloning a human sounds like a bad idea to me. So the research should be limited and controlled. If you think about all the problems that human cloning could cause......it is very complicated. But then again, that research is being done offshore regardless.


Creation of Faith Based social services instead of allotting money towards genuine urban renewal or social benefits.

This doesn't bother me at all. A faith-based social service and a non-faith-based social service are still providing social services. A faith-based social service is just as genuine. I personally would rather help someone out myself. You seem to have grudges again religion and wealth.


Helping to limit the rights of plaintiffs against HMO's.

This makes sense to me. Don't the lawsuit stories that you hear about bother you? It has gone too far in this country. You can get sued for just about anything. HMO's are providing an invaluable service to people and they deserve protection, but the recent trend of ridiculous lawsuits made the financial risks to be a doctor greater and ultimately that affected their insurance and the patient's bill. By limiting the rights of plaintiffs, the risk and cost is lower for the HMO and in turn the service is better. Do you
want your doctor to be afraid to help you?


Providing far below the minimum needed funding for AIDS prevention in Africa.

What is the minimum needed? The truth is that we are still donating a lot:

"the United States will this year spend $2.4 billion, nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the world's donor governments combined." -U.S. AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias (USAToday)

Not to mention the additional $150 Million generously donated by Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation this year. That's the way it should be done.


Cutting aid to nations that to not advocate abstinence-only AIDS prevention

Well, abstinence IS the only way to prevent it. Obviously that isn't going to happen. It does bother me how the U.N. demands to the U.S. how much money to give them and how it will be spent.
It is our money. The real issue here isn't our policy on AIDS Prevention in Africa, because I don't see how any government program is going to stop the spread of AIDS.
What we really need is a CURE. And we are spending a ton of money on research for that. It is only a matter of time.


Not being astute enough to take the warnings of terrorism seriously prior to 9/11 (this is debatable)

This is not even debatable. No one was astute enough, no one ever thought that 9-11 would really happen until it did. In retrospect there were obvious warnings, but only in retrospect.


Squandering worldwide respect and sympathy for America post 9/11

I disagree. You are correct- a lot of people aren't too fond of us at the moment. But what are the real reasons for it?

- They weren't too fond of us before 9-11 either.

- A lot of foreign media (most of which is left-wing) is unfairly negative toward America and President Bush,
This disrespect has created an unfair bias and hatred in foreigners towards Americans.

- The U.S. isn't here to do what the rest of the world thinks is right. We should do what we think is right. And we have. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us as long as we do what we think is right.

I don't want to shut us off from the rest of the world either, and we haven't done that. We have many allies. The fact of the matter is, it is very difficult for the entire world to agree on one thing. That is why the U.N. is so slow to do anything and also why we had to act without U.N. support.

- I think a lot of people in other countries envy the U.S. and dislike Americans out of jealousy. We are the last superpower and we are very wealthy. Whether they like it or not, we make a lot of decisions and actions that affect the world and them. They don't like that. I don't blame them but that's the way it is. It's been that way since WWII.
The U.S. is in a very difficult position of responsibility to the rest of the world. We have to nourish and police at the same time. No matter how much aid we give or how many countries we liberate, we will be criticized and despised. It is human nature. But I know that the U.S. is genuinely good. We didn't take over the world when we made the A-bomb. The US helps out the rest of the world more than any other country in history. If this world order is pissing people off, then they're ignorant.

- Some governments in other countries like France and Germany are trying to change the balance of world power to be more in their favor. In my opinion they have totally let us down.


- When you say "squander" it is like saying that we failed to take advantage of the leverage of worldwide respect and sympathy. Well, maybe we did, but that's not what's at stake here. Again- I don't care what
the rest of the world thinks about us as long as we do what is right.


Waging needless war, based on lies against a sovereign nation that was of no threat.

A needless war? How can you argue that getting rid of Saddam, liberating Iraqis, and finishing what was started in the Gulf War needless? A sovereign nation that was no threat? President Bush and
Congress genuinely believed that Iraq was a threat. They didn't lie. They were fed false information- The CIA, British intelligence, and Russian intelligence ALL believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
If the CIA, British and Russian Intell. told you that he had nukes, what would you do?!

Now we know better that he probably didn't, but if we didn't go, we still wouldn't know...... and you wouldn't even be able to found this question on anything!

In the long run, we have done the right thing. Thoughout all of history, there has never been peace until one side has been defeated. The middle east is messed up, and in time going to Iraq will change that region
for the better. There needs to be a western presence there, because right now muslim countries are preaching hatred. They are teaching people that acts of terrorism can be used to change government policies and that killing civilians is ok.
Its not ok, its a fundamental threat to modern society, and the people that preach and believe in terrorism need to be defeated.




In my opinion the most real issue is that of economic equality and opportunity...........However, the issues that are of greater importance, at least in terms of effecting people on a very personal level are economic ones.

Despite what seems to be an unfounded popular belief, the President really has no definitive control over the economy. The economy goes up and down, and just about every ten years there is a recession. He can help it, but the less the government interferes the better. Alan Greenspan hasn't changed jobs, and he has more control over the economy than Bush.... why don't you blame him?

The tax cuts have helped put money back in people's pockets to spend and fuel the economy. Within the year I think that the economy will be back in
a full swing no matter who is elected in November, but it is unpredictable. If you are so concerned with the economy, then why do you want to vote for
someone who will raise your taxes? Economic equality and opportunity? As long as you don't give up, you can be whatever you want to be in this country. No one is "STUCK".

[Grooveholmes]

Jesus Benzo, lay off the Kool*aid.
Don't you know that shit causes cancer?

[Helium Macaroni]

I likewise respectfully disagree with everything you say, benzo. But, a lengthy point-by-point response from me will have to wait until Thursday night, when my finals end.

In short however, what I may argue is that this society has limited significantly the ability for upward mobility in regards to economic advancement. That is an ideological and ethical debate that can continue at a later time. I may however point out that the tax breaks that you so laud (that do indeed go to everyone), unnecessarily favor the rich, who are disproportionately richer than the rest of society. It is most likely an issue of "fairness" which I'm sure you would like to stricken from any government?s obligation to maintain. The tax breaks also were not a break, but a loan, or an advance. I can go into more detail about this later, after finals.

A small note on Bill Gates and his charity: The interesting thing about that situation was the fact that Gates is invested in Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT, and the only manufacturer allowed by international trade agreement to sell to South Africa. So, not questioning Mr. Gates' charitable contribution, because I'm sure he is a socially conscientious man, and I know his charity is very generous and good-doing, but he directly profits off of this donation to South Africa. Also, I hear his father, who is at the heard of the Foundation, is the real source of charity. I don't mean to sound like I hate rich people, I do not. However I believe they owe their share in a nation that allowed them to become so wealthy. In a world which every rich man gives to the poor from the kindness of his own heart, and sees to the voluntary donation to causes of his choosing, there would indeed be a decent amount of harmony. However, you must take into consideration the fact that there are many such persons, of enormous wealth, who abuse their status, power, and money to acquire more. For example Ken Lay, John Rigas and his two sons, Robert Pittman, Fred Schiff, and William T. McCormick Jr. amongst many others. There is no blanket accusation that should be held against the rich and powerful, but as those who weald such vast power and wealth, they deserve greater scrutiny and should be obliged to conform to the established laws of corporate accountability, which to this point in time they have only just begun to be. This does not even take into consideration the countless corporations who escape taxation and government regulation through loopholes and offshore banking. Again, a conversation for another time.

There is much more indeed to discuss, but my work at the moment will not permit the loss of any more time. I will gladly approach this when my schedule lets up and I have time to properly rebut every point you've made. I look forward to replying to your statements, thank you for addressing my questions in a concise way.

[AmishCommy]

hey all

let me first appologize to Helium for not making a good enough effort to find him at the comic-con. I ran into a bunch of friends and met a bunch more new ones thrugh them and had a really good time but i did not get a chance to hang out at the Watts booth like i planned. anyways good luck with the finals and i cant wait to hear your responce to benzo's post.


here is mine:

benzo, i don't think i'll touch on every point you made (it is late here on the east coast), but in regard to the tax cut. I did not get the $300 in the mail. neither did my parents. what little difference i pay less this year as apposed to the years previous is offset by the taxes my state and other states raised to help pay for Bush's programs (homeland security, no child left behind, faith-based initiatives, etc.) the taxcut is a political ploy. bush gets to wave it around and appease his base and the few that are fooled by this lie while still paying more. waht's worse is that my future children will have to pay the bill.

by biggest reason for voting for kerry (besides the fact that he's not bush) is his promice to close the tax loopholes. do i think he can do anything about them? probably not. will he ever close them? probably not. but at least he aknowleges it. and you may never know, he may do something about it.

also, kerry's medical plan (based on repealing taxcuts for those making above $200k yearly) is said to cost about 50+ billion over the period of ten years (not too sure of the exact figure and too lazy to look for them right now). thats 500millon a year. and it will cover 40+ million people that are un-insured. that is a great idea. considering that in 2002 there were 80 millon uninsured.

now i agree with bush's theory that people should be allowed to invest in retirement. but i also agree with the theory of communism. and we see how well that werked. i think that an option to invest should be there but it should be explained to people wanting to use that option (allong with the risks involved) the BS that was paased with the medicare plan is also a political ploy. it goes into effect in 2006, long after the election, and does nothing about lowering drug costs. the medicare discount cards are a crock of shit. you can only subscibe to one per year. it only lowers the cost of certain drugs by 30% max. and it is a scam to get more money out of seniors (cost $30 per card) most seniors hear that bush passed the medicare savings act and they're sold. and come 2006 when the plan kicks in and they save shit cause inflation jacked the price of the drug to compensate the drug companies for the discount. I think kerry's plan to use the government's buying power (imagine a big "corporation" getting major discounts by bying in bulk) to lower the price of drugs is a step in the right direction.

the argument on fox news and other republicans is that the high prices we pay helps fund R&D of new drugs. well consider this. we made a giant mess in Iraq and we want the world to help pay for it. but something the world benefits from we want to pay for all ourselves. either we get drug costs down to the same levels that canada, and england, and france, and germany pays or we jack up their prices. i think that if the companies raise the mount other countries pay by just 5-10% we'll be able to lower our costs by the same 30% that bush proposed with the discount cards. and this will be a saving across the board. the savings to the consumer will in amount as a taxcut of sorts letting people keep a portion on money they'd otherwize spend on medicine and fuel bush's Piss-On-You Economics.



and another thing about taxes: bush said that he is looking into abolishing income taxes by implementing a federal sales tax. now i know that i cant hang him on this issue because he is just toying with the idea. there is absolutly no talk of implementing this. but if id does happen it will once again be a burdain on the middle and lower classes. imagine a tax upwards of 25% for anything from food to cars. This will be a sucker punch to economic growth. it will be the biggest taxbreak for the rich because they doge taxes like nobody's business. i think i wrote about this before but let me refresh your memory. i work at an art gallery. we sold a $50k sculpture to a client for his house in FL. he had to pay $3,000 in sales tax. he wanted us to send an empty box to his house in chicago so that he wouldnt pay the tax. and this happens constantly. the rich have more resources to avoid paying taxes.


as always, theres tons more i would like to say, but its late. i need sleep

[Helium Macaroni]

Quick reponse..

Commy, now worries about the 'con, I was too ADD anyway to find anyone :)

I agree with your points, as always.

[benzo]

In case anyone has time, you might be interested in watching this tonight:

tonight at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET

"The O'Reilly Factor"

A special encore presentation of Bill's rumble with filmmaker Michael Moore

I've read the transcript from this and I think it's a very interesting trade of words between the opposing ideologies.

[frosty]

Totally OT here but I just heard on the news AIDS is India's number 1 killer right now.

[N D Hill]

In case anyone has time, you might be interested in watching this tonight:

tonight at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET

"The O'Reilly Factor"

A special encore presentation of Bill's rumble with filmmaker Michael Moore

I've read the transcript from this and I think it's a very interesting trade of words between the opposing ideologies.

Benzo, is that available online?

[benzo]

Here is a partial transcript from foxnews.com.

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

[DanSTC]

What part of the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't make sense to you? Don't you think that a school should be held accountable for how well it teaches it's students?

The problem with No Child Left Behind was that it raises the bar for standards without increasing funding. What this means is that already-underfunded schools now have to work harder with funds they do not have, or they will have their funding cut. It's basically just a thinly veiled overhead cut to education funding.


Don't you think that a taxpayer should have the choice of where to send his or her child to school?

I would rather like a choice about where my taxes go. If tax money for already-underfunded public education is being siphoned to pay for private schooling vouchers, then I have a huge problem with it.


Shouldn't proven educational methods be used instead of unproven ones?

One of the main reasons that there's even a market for unproven teaching methods is because many schools act in desperation when there's not enough funding to purchase the proper textbooks, classroom equipment, teacher training, and so on.

It should also be noted that very many private schools use unproven and sometimes even harmful teaching methods, because they're not regulated in the manner that public education is.


Our education system is failing because there is no competitiveness between schools. This act changes that.

No. Our education system is failing because schools are tragically underfunded. Cutting funding does not increase competition - instead it worsens an already bad problem.


The biggest problem I always saw in public schools is that teachers who didn't give a crap couldn't get fired because of certain union laws that protected them after they had taught for a certain amount of years.

Another symptom of poor funding. Better funding would allow schools to hire more teachers who actually do care (and keep them on staff) regardless of ham-handed labor laws.

[frosty]

Youd not believe how much Federal money is funneled into local school systems for data communications and generally flushed or wasted down the drain. Thank you Bill Clinton for that one. :(

Dems adn Rebs alike have this govt bandage, if you toss enough money at it the problem will go away or be cured. Anybody with a lick of Business sense knows this is not true. But then again it is our money not theirs they spend eh?

[DanSTC]

Youd not believe how much Federal money is funneled into local school systems for data communications and generally flushed or wasted down the drain. Thank you Bill Clinton for that one. :(

Dems adn Rebs alike have this govt bandage, if you toss enough money at it the problem will go away or be cured. Anybody with a lick of Business sense knows this is not true. But then again it is our money not theirs they spend eh?

Anybody with a lick of business sense knows that it's funding AND regulation that cures a problem. Regulation alone will not solve something when the problem is primarily lack of funding, and funding alone will not solve a problem when reuglation is inefficient.

[Pencil Soldier]

"However I don't think this article takes certain underlying historical truths into account. I think there are significant generalizations that don't address the nuances of the time, the events, or the persons involved. Interesting read though."

Care to outline those points? It just that OSC has always had a very objective point of view. He also has a passion and a huge knowlage of history, so I find it unlikley that he didn't figure anything significant into his article.

However, I would like to mention that his aim was not to persude anybody. It's simply to make you think. That's why I love reading his articles. He's not twisting any facts around to get his way.

[troymcoy]

First of all, Global Warming is an unproven theory

This statement isn't true...


Is it alright for another country's natural resources to be exploited and not our own?

And what do you mean by this benzo? Are you saying its okay to exploit natural resources because other countries do?


I just saw the film, it was very interesting.
I think it goes without saying, impeach tex.

[benzo]

This statement isn't true...

Why isn't it true? You can't prove it. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying everyone assumes that it is true because they FEAR it is. There is a ton of research to support it, but still a ton of unanswered possibilities. Look at what we know about the history of the Earth. The temperature of this planet has fluctuated over time naturally. Nature has a way of replenishing and balancing herself. Today, whenever there is a flood or a drought or anything, environmentalists freak out. It seriously is like chicken little.



And what do you mean by this benzo? Are you saying its okay to exploit natural resources because other countries do?

I am saying it is okay to exploit natural resources, including our own. They are needed. Until they aren't needed anymore, be it by way of new technology or whatever, they will be exploited.


I think it goes without saying, impeach tex.

It doesn't go without saying.....just because Moore makes you sad and angry about the world doesn't mean that Bush is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the right thing and it is also the most difficult thing to do.

DanSTC- I agree with you that teachers aren't paid enough. But pouring more money into our education system isn't going to solve anything until there is more accountability for that money and the system is more affective.

At least Bush's new program is a good start towards more accountability. Personally, I would want a choice to use the tax money I pay every year for schools to go towards the private school I would put my child in. Its my money, I should have that choice.

Right now, the public school teachers with tenure are protected from getting fired by unions. Even if they don't do their jobs, they can't get fired. I went to public school and then changed to private because I was sick of nobody giving a shit.

frosty- I totally agree with you. Throwing money at a problem won't solve it. You have to choose between the two evils, I think, and Republicans are the better of the two because they fundamentally believe in smaller government. Besides spending a ton of money on Defense, which is necessary and one of the things that government is ONLY useful for (you can't make that private), they don't want to be big spenders.

However, in this day and age of lazy blood-suckers who want the government to take care of them, it is difficult to get elected without spending more taxpayer money. So many people fall into the left-wing trap of: we'll raise taxes and provide more unnecessary, money-vacuum services for you. Vote for me.

[benzo]

but in regard to the tax cut. I did not get the $300 in the mail. neither did my parents. what little difference i pay less this year as apposed to the years previous is offset by the taxes my state and other states raised to help pay for Bush's programs (homeland security, no child left behind, faith-based initiatives, etc.) the taxcut is a political ploy. bush gets to wave it around and appease his base and the few that are fooled by this lie while still paying more. what's worse is that my future children will have to pay the bill. We will all have to pay more for security now no matter who is President.

It's not a political ploy. You will be paying less to the government under Bush than Kerry. $300 bucks is still $300 bucks. The amount you get back reflects the amount of taxes you pay. Why should you get more back than someone who pays ten times more in taxes a year? If you didn't get your cut in the mail, and you qualified for it, then you should call the IRS. Show me what taxes your state raised to pay for Bush's programs.... what is your source?


by biggest reason for voting for kerry (besides the fact that he's not bush) is his promice to close the tax loopholes. do i think he can do anything about them? probably not. will he ever close them? probably not. but at least he aknowleges it. and you may never know, he may do something about it.

The reason there are so many loopholes is because everyone is taxed differently. If there was one tax for EVERYONE like there should be, there would be no loopholes and everyone would be treated equally.


now i agree with bush's theory that people should be allowed to invest in retirement. but i also agree with the theory of communism. and we see how well that werked. i think that an option to invest should be there but it should be explained to people wanting to use that option (along with the risks involved).

People need to be more responsible for their own retirements. Too many people today DEPEND on his or her employer to manage their retirements. If they don't take control and monitor their own money, I have no pity for them if they lose it all.


the BS that was paased with the medicare plan is also a political ploy. it goes into effect in 2006, long after the election, and does nothing about lowering drug costs. the medicare discount cards are a crock of shit. you can only subscibe to one per year. it only lowers the cost of certain drugs by 30% max. and it is a scam to get more money out of seniors (cost $30 per card) most seniors hear that bush passed the medicare savings act and they're sold. and come 2006 when the plan kicks in and they save shit cause inflation jacked the price of the drug to compensate the drug companies for the discount. I think kerry's plan to use the government's buying power (imagine a big "corporation" getting major discounts by bying in bulk) to lower the price of drugs is a step in the right direction.

the argument on fox news and other republicans is that the high prices we pay helps fund R&D of new drugs. well consider this. we made a giant mess in Iraq and we want the world to help pay for it. but something the world benefits from we want to pay for all ourselves. either we get drug costs down to the same levels that canada, and england, and france, and germany pays or we jack up their prices. i think that if the companies raise the mount other countries pay by just 5-10% we'll be able to lower our costs by the same 30% that bush proposed with the discount cards. and this will be a saving across the board. the savings to the consumer will in amount as a taxcut of sorts letting people keep a portion on money they'd otherwize spend on medicine and fuel bush's Piss-On-You Economics.

You make some good points, but basically it sounds like you want our government to be Socialist. Well I don't. It was not founded to be Socialist and I hope we never make the mistake of making it one. The USA was not intended to be like France or Canada or other countries. If you want our health system to be like those other countries, you should live there instead. Let me know how those taxes are too, what is it 50-60% of your income or something? Enjoy that. Because the US is not like those countries, you have more opportunity and you can make a better living here. I want it to stay that way.


and another thing about taxes: bush said that he is looking into abolishing income taxes by implementing a federal sales tax. now i know that i cant hang him on this issue because he is just toying with the idea. there is absolutly no talk of implementing this. but if id does happen it will once again be a burdain on the middle and lower classes. imagine a tax upwards of 25% for anything from food to cars. This will be a sucker punch to economic growth. it will be the biggest taxbreak for the rich because they doge taxes like nobody's business.

No doubt tax dodging happens all the time- by the rich and the poor. Why? Right now the rich pay the bulk of taxes. But the income tax is constitutionally WRONG. Please tell me, if we are all equal, how it is fair? If there is a federal sales tax, then we will ALL be taxed fairly, like we should be.

[Helium Macaroni]

As I'm looking over the 6+ pages in various replies that I have written in the last few days in preparation to respond to benzo's and other's posts I cannot help but be struck by the utter futility of this particular thread of conversation, and my perpetual involvement in it. I have decided not to post my replies or raise further points because in the grand scope of things ideologues will be ideologues. As this conversation goes on, I can hardly muster then energy needed to reply due to the futility I see and feel.

I stand by the previous statements I have made and I am glad that those who believe passionately in the truths they hold in their mind, regardless of how I regard their validity, continue to offer their position, whatever side of the political spectrum they may be on. I can easily spend hours upon hours contemplating replies, and pouring through various sources that provide my ideological fuel, in the effort to provide a meaningful and accurate response. However, the time constraints of (currently) work, and (previously) school have imposed strict limitations on my ability to devote time to such lengthy rebuttal, and God knows I love providing lengthy rebuttals.

A larger factor however is the feeling of division that sits uneasily with me at night, and at times when conversing with those who posses opposing viewpoints. It's a feeling that has done nothing but dash my hopes of any possible commonality between schools of political thought and discourse and has only increased the feelings of said futility. This is the only comment I will loose concerning Bush and current political climate in this nation: We seem to have never been this divided as a nation since the civil war. I among other like minds in this thread stand on one side of the crevasse, and those like benzo, Pencil Soldier and the like are on the other. As time draws on, the abyss between the two general schools of thought seems to be widening by the day. In my opinion, this does not seem to bode well. I relish political discourse and debate from general ideology and practice to the most specific of issues, but as far as I have seen in this nation and this thread as a microcosm of American political affections, there doesn?t appear to be any hope of compromise.

I'd love to devote time and resources to outline on a point-counterpoint basis where I stand, agree or disagree with various statements made, but I simply have neither the time nor the energy to do so. It's a bit depressing, but I know I will never convert anyone, nor affect the established ideologues, so in essence, what is the point? Neither side will change, neither side will gain ground. Nothing I say will have any bearing. My statements will either preach to the choir, or never satisfy the opponent. I've tried to make my positions clear, and I've offered up my opinions. After reading and replying, I'm pretty tired of it all and pretty certain that any more discussion on my part will do no particular good, nor serve any purpose. I?m just tired of debating. Oddly enough, thoughts pertaining to the subjects raised in this thread, and potential responses comprise a significant portion of my daily thoughts.

I believe I've shared my thoughts thoroughly enough and in sufficient verboseness to excite any compatriot, and rile any adversary. For now, in lieu of a reality in which neither side truly wishes to understand or sometimes even tolerate the other, I will simply retreat from the conversation.

[troymcoy]

hey did anyone read about how Bush hijacked the the death of this american soldier/football star? I think his name was Tillman, killed by friendly fire...

[benzo]

I was looking forward to your reply Helium, but do as you please.

I have no hard feelings towards anyone on this thread who disagrees with me as long as they are serious, thorough and respectful in their posts, as you have been.

Obviously we have very different views and opinions about the world and how it should be. I doubt we will ever agree on many issues, as you and I seem to each have strong fundamental beliefs. I enjoy this discussion we are having, but you are right, it is too time consuming (especially with your huge postings). And the worst is when it hangs in your thoughts during the day.

If I say anything else, it is this: I feel you are too negative about the world. Have more hope and patience.

Americans have always been able to find a compromise somehow, and hopefully it will continue to be that way in our time. Would it be so terrible to live with Bush for another four years? You will live through it just as I lived through Clinton. And if Kerry is elected I will live through that as well. The compromise is rooted in this tolerance.

The feeling of division you feel right now can best be resolved and understood through discussions like this one. Even if we don't come to a conclusion in accord, we better understand both sides.

I didn't want to raise any more points for you to address in this; I have spoken my opinions and stand by them too and we can just leave it at that.