liberals....

[Rob67]

Haven’t been around in awhile (real life happenings tend to put a damper on message boards!) and I see our propaganda machine is still in full swing here. So, here’s a little bit I came across which beautifully explains my distaste for extremes (mostly liberal, but religious right, as well). A little counter to that ridiculous Moore piece that's making so much news.

Enjoy!

Rob :cool:

PS. I know some of you will get a big kick out of the title. :thumbsup:
_________________________

Why I Hate Liberals

By Brantley Thompson Elkins

There was a story in the news last year about the failures of the Head Start program. You remember Head Start; it was created to give disadvantaged pre-school children a leg up — teach them their ABCs, that sort of thing.

Only it wasn’t doing that. The kids weren’t learning their ABCs, or anything else. Head Start had turned into nothing but a baby sitting service. It was shocking news, but not half as shocking as the reaction from one of the teachers’ unions.

You mustn’t even try to teach these poor children their ABCs, the union people said; they’re too young, too vulnerable. It will destroy their self-esteem; they’ll be traumatized for life. They trotted out alleged studies to back up their argument. But they couldn’t hide the obvious truth: not only had they failed the children, but they were trying to make a virtue of that failure.

I already knew that conservatives didn’t give a **** whether children learned anything, as long as "Under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance and nasty things like evolution were kept out of textbooks. But now it was clear that liberals didn’t give a **** either, as long as unionized teachers and bureaucrats got big raises and kids learned why Heather has two mommies, even if they couldn’t read the book about Heather.

Bilingual education, founded as a program to teach Spanish-speaking children in their own language only until they could master English, has similarly turned into a program that, effectively, prevents children from learning English and doesn’t do a good job of teaching them anything else. But again, it provides extra jobs for teachers, and the superficial impression that the country is "doing something" for disadvantaged minorities.

That was what welfare programs were supposed to do for the poor, and these seemed to be so essential to their very survival that when welfare reform was imposed in the 1990’s there were fears that millions would be dying of starvation. It didn’t happen, in part because privately funded food banks took up the slack. There are still serious problems with moving the poor back into the "heartless" private economy, especially now, but even when the welfare system was still entrenched, it was hardly a compassionate enterprise.

Some years back, I encountered a homeless woman and her children on the street, begging for help. She told me she’d been burned out of her apartment, and cut off welfare as a result. The welfare office refused to help her find another place to live, she said. She’d have go to some other office clear across town. Well, I gave her some money, but I also got the phone number of her caseworker.

That woman hadn’t been selling me a phony sob story; the caseworker confirmed her account in every detail. The welfare office wasn’t allowed to help her with housing, or even to contact the housing agency on her behalf. So here she was pounding the pavement, begging for help, because one city agency wouldn’t make a ****ing phone call to another city agency. But I’ll bet they had plenty of time to call Dial-A-Joke or porno lines.

Liberals are supposed to be the friends of the poor and oppressed. Maybe they were, once. But many of them today are just social parasites, whose bureaucratic programs and earnest causes are devoted more to securing their own government jobs or making them feel good about themselves than to truly aiding the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, whatever, whoever.

When did it happen? Back during the Depression, when unemployment and poverty were far more widespread than today, liberals truly did represent the common man. Those were the days when unions organized major industries like steel mills, automobile plants and coal mines for the first time. Those were the days when John Steinback mythologized the Okies in The Grapes of Wrath and Aaron Copland composed a Fanfare for the Common Man.

Guess what? The steelworkers and autoworkers and miners joined the middle class. They weren’t poor and downtrodden any more. They bought decent homes, new cars, put swimming pools and barbecues in their back yards, watched sitcoms and soap operas on TV. A lot of the Okies ended up as successful farmers or skilled workers in California. They had committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of liberal intellectuals: they had become bourgeois.

Just as the old-line right-wingers thought nothing could be worse than a Communist (Nowadays, they may be split between secular humanists and Islamic fundamentalists as bêtes noirs.), ivory tower liberals still believe that nothing can be worse than a bourgeois. It is a prejudice that has a long history, going back at least as far as French novelist Gustave Flaubert ("Hatred of the bourgeoisie is the beginning of wisdom.").

Of course, the liberal intelligentsia can argue that its contempt for the working class turned bourgeoisie is well-earned: just look at Archie Bunker. Anyone who thinks there aren’t still a lot of Archie Bunkers out there, even 20 years after All in the Family, must be living on Mars. But there is an obvious element of hypocrisy here: can anyone seriously believe that working class whites were more bigoted in the 1970s or afterwards than they were in the 1930s when they were celebrated in proletarian fiction?

Among European intellectuals, there has long been a contempt for the common people almost as virulent as that of British aristocrats of old. "A tepid mass of flesh scarcely organized into human life," Virginia Woolf called them. But perhaps even more virulent has been the liberal intellectual romanticization of the antisocial and even the criminal as preferable to the bourgeois, which has crossed the ocean in recent decades.

Jean Paul Sartre once wrote a hagiography of Jean Genêt, the thief turned poet and playwright, who had demonstrated his authenticity by "choosing" to be a thief. Without arguing about the literary merits of either writer, let us imagine that Genêt had "chosen" to be a doctor — not a Park Avenue plastic surgeon, mind you, but a doctor dedicated to service of the poor. Would Sartre have canonized him?

More recently, Norman Mailer canonized Jack Henry Abbott, a convicted violent criminal he knew had to be a sensitive intellectual type because he’d regurgitated Mailer’s own ideas in a book. Even after Abbott, paroled in large part because of Mailer’s intervention, murdered an aspiring actor who was waiting tables for a living, Mailer continued to defend his protegé, as if he agreed with Abbott’s assessment that his bourgeois victim’s life was worthless.

Just as conservatives long imposed a double standard for sexual behavior, placing the burden of "immorality" entirely on women, the liberal establishment has imposed a moral double standard as strict as that which once divided nobles and commoners. Imagine how they’d react if a "bourgeois" writer like Stephen King or Dean Koontz murdered his wife in a William Tell stunt. Yet Williams S. Burroughs, a darling of the intelligentsia, did just that -- only his act became part of his heroic literary mythology.

One of the favorite liberal catchphrases during the Vietnam protest era was "ad hoc" -- there were all manner of ad hoc committees and coalitions for this and that. Maybe there was even an Ad Hoc Coalition for a Viable Alternative. But now ad hoc morality seems to be the thing. This is supposedly in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, but what it amounts to is an ad hoc moral absolutism as tendentious as that of the religious right.

Sometimes this is a simple reverse absolutism, as if Hollywood had suddenly decided to make white hats a symbol of evil in Westerns. White people are evil; people of color are good. Men are all testosterone-crazed rapists and murderers; women are all nurturing. Gays are more sensitive than straights. But it gets more complicated in some cases. Anti-Semitism is still evil if it comes from the Right, but understandable if it comes from the Left: hence the Left's acceptance of the John Adams opera The Death of Leon Klinghoffer that characterized Jews as vulgar money-grubbers and implied that Klinghoffer deserved his fate at the hands of Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro.

Whites in America owe reparations to blacks for the past crime of slavery; this is no longer even considered a subject for debate on some college campuses, where newspapers have been suppressed for running ads by a right-wing gadfly attacking the idea. Yet present-day slavery in countries like Sudan is no big deal, because it is imposed by Arab Muslims rather than white Christians -- or was American slavery another conspiracy by the Jews? And nobody seems to think that whites in Brazil and other countries that once held Africans in bondage owe reparations.

In American Gypsy, a documentary about a king of the gypsies in Spokane, Washington, who had run-ins with the law, there are clips from local newcasts that jokingly suggested recent fires and plane crashes might be the result of a curse he had placed on the city. The Spokane news anchors would have known better than make fun of blacks or Latinos or Asians or Native Americans in such a manner -- they were on the list of those protected by Political Correctness guidelines. But gypsies weren't on the list, so they were fair game.

Too many ordinary Americans believe that they too are fair game. They may not read the academic journals or books, but they can sense the condescension and contempt in which they are held by those who write them off as incurably vulgar and small-minded, or even as incorrigible racists, sexists and homophobes. Today's liberals are addicted to rhetorical overkill over public controversies -- remember how they compared New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to Hitler for attacking an art show he thought was anti-religious? Or how they thought that only a bigot could possibly be offended by a photo of a crucifix in a tank of piss? What if it had been a menorah, or a portrait of Martin Luther King in a tank of piss?

Liberal intellectuals are so alarmed by the rise of the Right that they don't even want to be called liberals any more. There aren't any liberals, in colleges or campaigns; just moderates desperately fighting the neo-Nazi juggernaut. But they themselves helped create the atmosphere for the resurgence of the Right through their elitist alienation from those they once called the masses, and even today they are too obsessed with their self-righteousness and the supposed purity of their political correctness to offer a viable alternative. They hate everyone but themselves, and have thus become hateful to everyone but themselves.

[CarneVaca]

Haven’t been around in awhile (real life happenings tend to put a damper on message boards!) and I see our propaganda machine is still in full swing here. So, here’s a little bit I came across which beautifully explains my distaste for extremes (mostly liberal, but religious right, as well). A little counter to that ridiculous Moore piece that's making so much news.

Enjoy!

Rob :cool:

PS. I know some of you will get a big kick out of the title. :thumbsup:
_________________________

Why I Hate Liberals


Rob, a couple of things:

Have you see the "ridiculous" Moore piece?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post something with the title "I Hate Liberals?"

[Rob67]

Rob, a couple of things:

Have you see the "ridiculous" Moore piece?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post something with the title "I Hate Liberals?"

Yes

And

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony) :D

Rob

[dissention]

I see the beast has returned. :xoxo:

I won't partake in your threads until you actually give us a review of the film, like everyone else has, instead of just calling it "ridiculous." But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate. :angel:

[CarneVaca]

Yes

And

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony) :D

Rob


No, Rob, I don't have a hard time with sarcasm and irony. I employ both frequently. I just have a hard time with the apparent mental limitations of some people who should know better. If you write something titled I hate "blues" and part of your audience is blue, you are immediately gratuitously insulting that part of the audience. If you are making a case against "blues," there are much more intelligent ways of doing so rather than insulting.

Be that is it may, this three-name, pompous, butt-chewing, probably bow-tied, hate-spewing mental defector who says he hates liberals? F--- him.

[Bella Figura]

just to state, I like Michael Moore and I have seen his movie but Rob's article makes some good points. At this juncture, regular people can no longer define themselves within either political spectrum be it liberal or conservative.

"and you think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still ****in' peasants as far as I can see" Working Class Hero, John Lennon


"my first mistake was to smile at you" Stevie Nicks

[dissention]

Be that is it may, this three-name, pompous, butt-chewing, probably bow-tied, hate-spewing mental defector who says he hates liberals? F--- him.

I don't think Tucker Carlson wrote that article, but I get your drift.

[dissention]

just to state, I like Michael Moore and I have seen his movie but Rob's article makes some good points.

No, it doesn't. It does the same thing it condemns. :shrug: It spins things and falsely interprets the Head Start situation.

The fact is, posting that kind of op-ed is going to draw a lot of fire from liberals. It insults them, that's why Rob posted it. ;) To get our goats and rile us up. But I see it for what it is: a poorly-informed piece of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The writer is not going to convince liberals of anyhting, neither is Rob.

But you're right about being liberal or conservative, there is no in-between.

[Rob67]

I see the beast has returned. :xoxo:

I won't partake in your threads until you actually give us a review of the film, like everyone else has, instead of just calling it "ridiculous." But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate. :angel:

I didn't say I paid to see it and I don't have the energy to waste my day on reviewing it. I will say that Moore is a talented documentary maker and humorous when he wants to be. It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

And of course I don’t expect you guys to read anything I post, it usually hurts when someone makes a point that hits too close to home. :xoxo: And that is always uncomfortable to deal with. I also don’t expect any responses other then postings of articles from reporters with agendas or the “you suck” variety. This is just a take on the state of liberal extremism and how it has become what it has become. The title is a “tounge in cheek” take on the hateful speech that is used by many extremists, a la: “I hate Bush”.

Every day that Ted Kennedy continues to open his mouth I become a little bit more conservative. :)

Politics aside, how are you??

[Bella Figura]

dissention says "No, it doesn't. It does the same thing it condemns. It spins things and falsely interprets the Head Start situation." btw, I support Head Start, my in-laws both work for the Grandparents program and I've seen first hand how it helps kids...

but don't you have the feeling that all the media, political animals and even you're religious next door neighbor is "spinning" these days??

all I feel at this point is that I'm being lied to by everyone both liberal and conservative. and that's my only point...article, movie or political debate, I keep most of my opinions to myself as everyone has his own agenda even you dissention... are you really interested in educating/enlightening me or just browbeating me with your opinion, look at your signature and then look at mine :rolleyes:

[estranged4life]

"and you think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still ****in' peasants as far as I can see" Working Class Hero, John Lennon


was blessed with the wonders of putting his thoughts to words, Now I can see why people are in dire need to trade for his 222 (That's right, 222 cd's of everything you can imagine, I only have the first 22 discs but it is very interesting to hear to say the least) cd set of the Unreleased Lennon Tapes.

[strandinthewind]

Rob, a couple of things:

Have you see the "ridiculous" Moore piece?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post something with the title "I Hate Liberals?"

With all due respect, MM himself admits his new movie is not a fair and balanced approach and it is specifically tuned to portray W in a way that will get him out of the WH. So, people can call him on it for that. Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that :shrug: Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film. He creates a similarly ridiculous atmosphere by the use of music to portray his points. It is mean spirited and he admits that. I am not saying he has no right to do this and that his use is not effective - he does and it is. I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule :shrug:

Also, the far left aften use inciting titles and expect to be taken seriously. I am just sayin. . . . . . . . :cool:

Disclaimer: I think MM has made a good peice of, by his own admission, propoganda. I am just commenting on his style.

[CarneVaca]

I will say that Moore is a talented documentary maker and humorous when he wants to be. It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.


Name them.

[strandinthewind]

No, it doesn't. It does the same thing it condemns. :shrug: It spins things and falsely interprets the Head Start situation.

The fact is, posting that kind of op-ed is going to draw a lot of fire from liberals. It insults them, that's why Rob posted it. ;) To get our goats and rile us up. But I see it for what it is: a poorly-informed piece of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The writer is not going to convince liberals of anyhting, neither is Rob.

But you're right about being liberal or conservative, there is no in-between.
PUUHHHLLLEEEEZZEEEEE - like you far lefties are above posting that kind of thing :rolleyes: But, I still love ya anyway!!!!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :nod: :nod:

[CarneVaca]

all I feel at this point is that I'm being lied to by everyone both liberal and conservative.

This I agree with. It is why I stopped respecting the Democrats and stopped towing the party line when Clinton was caught lying and the so-called liberals were going out of their way to defend him. Even the chairwoman of NOW was defending Clinton! That's one I'll never understand.

Yes, everybody is lying.

[dissention]

PUUHHHLLLEEEEZZEEEEE - like you far lefties are above posting that kind of thing :rolleyes: But, I still love ya anyway!!!!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :nod: :nod:

Not at all. We all do it, but we also debate the issues. I didn't see Rob even attempt to do it. He simply dismissed the film as "ridiculous," and dismisses liberals the same way. Not exactly a stimulating debate. ;)

[Rob67]

With all due respect, MM himself admits his new movie is not a fair and balanced approach and it is specifically tuned to portray W in a way that will get him out of the WH. So, people can call him on it for that. Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that :shrug: Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film. He creates a similarly ridiculous atmosphere by the use of music to portray his points. It is mean spirited and he admits that. I am not saying he has no right to do this and that his use is not effective - he does and it is. I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule :shrug:

Also, the far left aften use inciting titles and expect to be taken seriously. I am just sayin. . . . . . . . :cool:

Disclaimer: I think MM has made a good peice of, by his own admission, propoganda. I am just commenting on his style.

I did think the film was funny, and again, he is a good filmmaker. He also has every right to make whatever film he chooses. I would protect his rights the same way I would protect Gibson and his Passion.

BUT, I do think it is shown as the “truth” and many uninformed people will take it as such, especially with the far left and many media outlets singing its praises without calling BS on some of his hypotheses.

Rob :cool:

[CarneVaca]

With all due respect, MM himself admits his new movie is not a fair and balanced approach and it is specifically tuned to portray W in a way that will get him out of the WH. So, people can call him on it for that.

Does that define ridiculous, Jason?

Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that :shrug:

How interesting. You think using an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act to congressmen is ridiculous. But you don't think a system in which a law that contradicts the Bill of Rights passed by people who didn't read what they were voting on is ridiculous. Yes, Jason, I know that these guys can't possibly read everything. But a law that annuls some of what's in the Bill of Righs? Surely you're not that forgiving.

Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film.

Oh, Jason, you'd rather he played it straight all the way so that nobody would bother to go see it? :rolleyes:

I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule :shrug:

With all due respect, Jason, what's ridiculous is blasting the film for his use of a comical device. That's just silly on your part.

[strandinthewind]

Not at all. We all do it, but we also debate the issues. I didn't see Rob even attempt to do it. He simply dismissed the film as "ridiculous," and dismisses liberals the same way. Not exactly a stimulating debate. ;)

I could be wrong, but I think Rob posted that to start a debate :shrug: And - he has!!!!!!

BTW - HHHEEELLLLLOOOOO RRRROOOBBBBBBB!!!!!!!!!

[Bella Figura]

est tu?? Carne!!!! :xoxo: no, I refuse to believe that there is not one honest man or woman in the US...

but to take back our country without resorting to good old-fashioned riots and a well-placed assassinations requires everyone not only to vote but to think and vote...

[CarneVaca]

BUT, I do think it is shown as the “truth” and many uninformed people will take it as such, especially with the far left and many media outlets singing its praises without calling BS on some of his hypotheses.

Rob :cool:

Rob, your bull**** is getting more and more transparent. Really, you are beginning to look pathetic here.

Once again, why don't you enlighten us on what is "untrue" in the movie?

[CarneVaca]

est tu?? Carne!!!! :xoxo: no, I refuse to believe that there is not one honest man or woman in the US...

but to take back our country without resorting to good old-fashioned riots and a well-placed assassinations requires everyone not only vote but to think and vote...

You know something? Right about now I wouldn't mind a couple of riots...

[dissention]

all I feel at this point is that I'm being lied to by everyone both liberal and conservative. and that's my only point...article, movie or political debate, I keep most of my opinions to myself as everyone has his own agenda even you dissention... are you really interested in educating/enlightening me or just browbeating me with your opinion, look at your signature and then look at mine :rolleyes:

Whoa, I wasn't making things personal, there's no reason for you to do so. :wavey:

I think everyone on this board who participates in these discussions tries to eduacte and enlighten people with their posts, articles, and facts. That doesn't mean we're successful, but we try. We don't just post op-eds and then cut and run. ;)

As for my sig, the intention wasn't to browbeat you, I don't even know you. It's there as a sign of my support of the next president of the United States, Mr. John Kerry.

[Rob67]

Not at all. We all do it, but we also debate the issues. I didn't see Rob even attempt to do it. He simply dismissed the film as "ridiculous," and dismisses liberals the same way. Not exactly a stimulating debate. ;)

That proves you didn't read my original post!!! :laugh:

Rob ;)

[dissention]

I could be wrong, but I think Rob posted that to start a debate :shrug: And - he has!!!!!!

BTW - HHHEEELLLLLOOOOO RRRROOOBBBBBBB!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, and Stevie hates black. ;)

[strandinthewind]

With all due respect, Jason, what's ridiculous is blasting the film for his use of a comical device. That's just silly on your part.

I am not doing that. Didn't I say it was effective and met his goals - that is far from blasting the film? I liked the film, but it clearly is propoganda - MM admits this. AND - I do not blame him for using it to sell the film because as you said, which I said earlier (I think) that people will not go to see a boring doc.

ALLl I am saying is people should not act like their balloon of hope popped when people take offense to MM using humor in this way. It is a sword that cuts both ways :shrug: Does anyone think MM did not know he would be attacked (which I am NOT doing) for using humor this way. Of course he did. That is why he used it :shrug:

[Bella Figura]

blast, I actually have to work now!!! I'll be back!! :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Does that define ridiculous, Jason?

Well, actually it does - here is the stem:

Main Entry: 1rid·i·cule
Pronunciation: 'ri-d&-"kyü(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin ridiculum jest
: the act of exposing to laughter : DERISION, MOCKERY

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ridicule

Does anyone think MM is not using the humor with derision and explicitly to mock Congress and W :shrug:
____________________________________________________________

here is the word:

Main Entry: ri·dic·u·lous
Pronunciation: r&-'di-ky&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ridiculosus (from ridiculum jest, from neuter of ridiculus) or ridiculus, literally, laughable, from ridEre to laugh
: arousing or deserving ridicule : ABSURD, PREPOSTEROUS
synonym see LAUGHABLE
- ri·dic·u·lous·ly adverb
- ri·dic·u·lous·ness noun

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ridiculous

________________________________________________________

Although I like the film, I think the use of the word is fair - at least how the word is defined by Merriam Webster :cool: I mean clearly MM is ridiculing the powers to be :shrug:

[dissention]

but to take back our country without resorting to good old-fashioned riots and a well-placed assassinations requires everyone not only to vote but to think and vote...

Yeah, that way they can pick and choose which ballots to count and then give the Supreme Court the power to select a president.

Let me get some eggs ready for inauguration day.

[CarneVaca]

ALLl I am saying is people should not act like their balloon of hope popped when people take offense to MM using humor in this way. It is a sword that cuts both ways :shrug: Does anyone think MM did not know he would be attacked (which I am NOT doing) for using humor this way. Of course he did. That is why he used it :shrug:

Jason, I get your point. Still, you're apparent need to make it is a bit puzzling. Are you embarrassed that you like the movie?

If people want to criticize it for tone, I say &^%$ 'em!

[Rob67]

I think everyone on this board who participates in these discussions tries to eduacte and enlighten people with their posts, articles, and facts. That doesn't mean we're successful, but we try. We don't just post op-eds and then cut and run. ;)


BS ALARM!!!!!!! :D

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, and Stevie hates black. ;)


Smart A$$$ :p

[dissention]

BS ALARM!!!!!!! :D

Rob :cool:

Sorry, I'm hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh, so I can't hear it going off. :D

[strandinthewind]

Jason, I get your point. Still, you're apparent need to make it is a bit puzzling. Are you embarrassed that you like the movie?

If people want to criticize it for tone, I say &^%$ 'em!

No, but I think MM is a guilty pleasure for many. I think most get that MM is not to be taken too seriously in presentation, but he is to be taken very seriously in content.

For me, I tend not to like any extremist points of view delivered in a condescending manner - to me, MM is the same in presentation as Sean Hannity. I think they both ridicule and insult to make their respective points. I am just willing to admit this. Many of the far left and right are not. They blindly swear by the one they support and hate the other side for using the same type of method to convey the point.

[CarneVaca]

Although I like the film, I think the use of the word is fair - at least how the word is defined by Merriam Webster :cool: I mean clearly MM is ridiculing the powers to be :shrug:

Ridiculosis indeed!

Jason, saying the film uses ridicule as a device and saying the film is ridiculous are two different things. Surely you understand that?

"Ridicule" and "wit" became intertwined in 18th Century France as a device used by people who were "hip" or "cool," to use more recent terms. If you use ridicule, you are not necessarily ridiculous, but if you are, they may be entirely separate matters. Compris?

[dissention]

Jason, I get your point. Still, you're apparent need to make it is a bit puzzling. Are you embarrassed that you like the movie?

If people want to criticize it for tone, I say &^%$ 'em!

Of course he's embarrassed. He can't let any of us know that he liked the movie as much as he did, so he has to over-analyze every frame of it so as not to get flamed by the two conservatives around here; he has to shroud every political post in mystery. He thinks he'll somehow be associated with us "ridiculous" people if he admits his love for it and that's worse than voting for Bush, in his mind.

Of course, this is just specualtion. And I love ya anyways. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Sorry, I'm hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh.

And aren't you lucky!

[strandinthewind]

Ridiculosis indeed!

Jason, saying the film uses ridicule as a device and saying the film is ridiculous are two different things. Surely you understand that?

"Ridicule" and "wit" became intertwined in 18th Century France as a device used by people who were "hip" or "cool," to use more recent terms. If you use ridicule, you are not necessarily ridiculous, but if you are, they may be entirely separate matters. Compris?

I get that. But, the dictionary suggests they are the same. I think I was being too literal with the word - a fault of mine I readily admit :laugh: But, I see what you mean and agree from that POV you are correct.

BTW have you ever seen the movie "Wit" - which IMO was great!!!!!!!!

[CarneVaca]

For me, I tend not to like any extremist points of view delivered in a condescending manner - to me, MM is the same in presentation as Sean Hannity.

Jason, yet you do. You like the movie, right?

Also, I think it is somewhat off target to compare Michael Moore to Sean Hannity. If you peel back the layers, a lot of times you end up with serious distortions and blatant lies when it comes to Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.

Peel back the layers with Moore and you may end up with a couple of dubious associations, yet the facts are pretty solid. If you can dispute that, I'd like to see it.

So while Hannity and Moore may both use insult and sarcasm, I still wouldn't put them in the same category.

[strandinthewind]

Of course he's embarrassed. He can't let any of us know that he liked the movie as much as he did, so he has to over-analyze every frame of it so as not to get flamed by the two conservatives around here; he has to shroud every political post in mystery. He thinks he'll somehow be associated with us "ridiculous" people if he admits his love for it and that's worse than voting for Bush, in his mind.

Of course, this is just specualtion. And I love ya anyways. :laugh:

I have never voted for Bush.

Morevoer, have I not repeatedly said I liked the move, the movie was good, MM was effective in presentation, etc. Sounds like someone is a little too upset that everyone is not praying at the alter od the far left god known as MM :laugh: (please note I am being sarcastic)

[CarneVaca]

BTW have you ever seen the movie "Wit" - which IMO was great!!!!!!!!

Yes, that's what made me think of France. The movie was excellent.

That was actually a thing, though. Your stock could rise and fall at the blink of an eye based on the level of wit you could exhibit. And much of the wit was based on ridiculing others.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, yet you do. You like the movie, right?

Also, I think it is somewhat off target to compare Michael Moore to Sean Hannity. If you peel back the laywers, a lot of times you end up with serious distortions and blatant lies when it comes to Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.

Peel back the layers with Moore and you may end up with a couple of dubious associations, yet the facts are pretty solid. If you can dispute that, I'd like to see it.

So while Hannity and Moore may both use insult and sarcasm, I still wouldn't put them in the same category.


I agree, I was talking about presentation only in that I think they use similar tools. But and again, no one would watch either if they were boring :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

I agree, I was talking about presentation only in that I think they use similar tools. But and again, no one would watch either if they were boring :shrug:

Damn it, now I have nothing to respond to. I guess I'll just have to make fun of your frequent use of the lawyerly term "moreover." :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, that's what made me think of France. The movie was excellent.

That was actually a thing, though. Your stock could rise and fall at the blink of an eye based on the level of wit you could exhibit. And much of the wit was based on ridiculing others.


I will never forget the scene where the guy proves the existence of God - which got him accolades from the King on down. Then, literally 1 minute later when he offers in his exalted and praised state to disprove it, he immediately falls from grace. Great movie!!!! I think I will rent it this weekend!!!

[dissention]

I have never voted for Bush.

Morevoer, have I not repeatedly said I liked the move, the movie was good, MM was effective in presentation, etc. Sounds like someone is a little too upset that everyone is not praying at the alter od the far left god known as MM :laugh: (please note I am being sarcastic)

I never said you voted for Bush, I said that you being associated with us "ridiculous liberals" was far worse than voting for him. :p

And Moore isn't a god, he's a patriot. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Damn it, now I have nothing to respond to. I guess I'll just have to make fun of your frequent use of the lawyerly term "moreover." :lol:

Furthermore, In Addition, Also, blah blah blah :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I never said you voted for Bush, I said that you being associated with us "ridiculous liberals" was far worse than voting for him. :p

And Moore isn't a god, he's a patriot. ;)

But there in is my point - the far right thinks Hannity is a Patriot because he uses similar tools to convey his message :shrug: In the end, I like MM's product - I think this film is good. It does make, to quote Carne, dubious associations to wit - so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US. MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked. Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack :shrug: Yet, MM does not say that. He knows that the use of the SA name and the bin Laden (there are hundreds in that immedicate family) will cause people to somehow in their heads think W aided OBL. Intererstingly, W did this same technique with linking OBL with Iraq. While there were mostly minor and insignificant connections (except for the medical treatment issue) - W knew that most Americans will view all Middle Easterners the same. They will not be able to separate in thier heads the fact that not everyone wearing a turban is OBL. So, MM does this with the BL name. How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that? No. He just uses the visual to make the connection. Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda. I do not fault him for it. I just feel the need to point that out whenever you all seemingly take it for the be all and end all of the unbiased truth, which it is not and was never intended to be, which MM readily admits.

[dissention]

But there in is my point - the far right thinks Hannity is a Patriot because he uses similar tools to convey his message :shrug: In the end, I like MM's product - I think this film is good. It does make, to quote Carne, dubious associations to wit - so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US. MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked. Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack :shrug: Yet, MM does not say that. He knows that the use of the SA name and the bin Laden (there are hundreds in that immedicate family) will cause people to somehow in their heads think W aided OBL. Intererstingly, W did this same technique with linking OBL with Iraq. While there were mostly minor and insignificant connections (except for the medical treatment issue) - W knew that most Americans will view all Middle Easterners the same. They will not be able to separate in thier heads the fact that not everyone wearing a turban is OBL. So, MM does this with the BL name. How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that? No. He just uses the visual to make the connection. Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda. I do not fault him for it. I just feel the need to point that out whenever you all seemingly take it for the be all and end all of the unbiased truth, which it is not and was never intended to be, which MM readily admits.

No, Hannity is an ass because he maliciously lies and misleads his audience, all the while claiming it is fact. Michael Moore does not do that. Point me to one instance in his film where he lies. I submit you cannot. The pundits were all up in arms over his "claims" that the bin Laden's and Saudi's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was shut down, yet he NEVER made that claim in the film. He explicitly stated that they were allowed to leave after September 13th, then proceeded to show the audience the flight lists. He is not trying to link Bush to OBL, he's showing the audience the links between the Bush's, the bin Laden's, and the Saudi's. And he provided concrete evidence that they all were involved in a moneymaking relationship. It can't be refuted. And OBL has not been disowned by his family; do an internet search and you will see that they've had many personal encounters over the years.

And Moore has never said his film is propaganda. He said it's one-sided and anti-Bush, but propaganda is not the right word for it. Again, show me a documentary that isn't biased.

[CarneVaca]

How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that?

This has been widely reported. From about Sept. 12, when Osama's name became a household word, it was reported again and again that he was the black sheep of the bin Ladin family.

Besides, I do believe that Moore does mention that the family disowned him. But Moore also points out that some of the family remains in contact with him and, in fact, some of them went to Osama's son's wedding in Afghanistan. That's in the movie.

Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Interestingly, and this is what I hoped our friend Rob67, who has scurried back to his hole after being challenged on his assertion about mistruths in the movie, would touch on for us. Because as of the release of the 9/11 commission report, these flights have come into question. Evidently the report says the flights took place after the airports reopened.

Let's say Moore got this wrong. Whose fault is that? These flights taking place during the shutdown of US airspace have been reported for at least a year. I believe even the Times and Washington Post reported them. If the 9/11 commission debunks this as a myth after the movie has already been made, whose fault is it? After all, the flights had been accepted as fact until then. And why didn't the commission release its report earlier? Didn't the administration have something to do with the delays?

Having said all that, I am still skeptical about the story of these flights. If Clarke says, in the context of the flights taking place during the shutdown of the airspace, that he approved them, not the White House, but the commission says they took place after the airspace was reopened, who is right? If the commission has taken Clarke's testimony and made it part of its findings in some things but has chosen to differ with him on this, then I must ask why. Am I missing something?

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda.

"By his own admission" being the key phrase. Are you somehow, afraid that everybody doesn't know that?

[CarneVaca]

The pundits were all up in arms over his "claims" that the bin Laden's and Saudi's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was shut down, yet he NEVER made that claim in the film.

Interesting point.

[strandinthewind]

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

BTW - I agree hannity lies. I am not talking about that. I am talking about his technique of yelling, etc. I think MM employs a similar technique to make his point. He, like Hannity, does not just factually say something. He and Hannity are smarter than that. So is Randi Rhodes (sp.?) - they all know that using emotion (humor, yelling, etc.) will get them noticed. I do not blame them for it. I just recognize they all do it. Yet, the far left will NEVER admit MM uses it and that makes him similar to every other pundit who does it as well.

[strandinthewind]

"By his own admission" being the key phrase. Are you somehow, afraid that everybody doesn't know that?

I do not assume anything with you people :laugh:

Seriously, I was just using his own words to make my point - nothing more. :woohoo: Yet, when that point is made, the far left goes beserk - it is almost like making that point takes away from the credibility of the point of the movie.

[The Tower]

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony)

Yeah, right... the liberals around here have always had a hard time with sarcasm and irony..... :laugh:

But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate.

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm?? ;)

It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.

Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that :shrug: Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film.

I am not saying he has no right to do this and that his use is not effective - he does and it is. I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule.

I am just commenting on his style.

Of course, the idea that members of congress read everything they vote on is ridiculous. However, the Patriot Act radically changed the powers of government. You would think congress would have deliberated all the various items in the bill for a LEAST a week or two, if not months. Moore's over-the-top style was definitely needed, considering congress's complete idiocy with regard to the Patriot Act (jeez, I hate the name of that bill- nothing could be further from the truth!)

How interesting. You think using an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act to congressmen is ridiculous. But you don't think a system in which a law that contradicts the Bill of Rights passed by people who didn't read what they were voting on is ridiculous. Yes, Jason, I know that these guys can't possibly read everything. But a law that annuls some of what's in the Bill of Righs? Surely you're not that forgiving.

Exactly!

Sorry, I'm hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh, so I can't hear it going off. :D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[CarneVaca]

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

Jason, the answer is in the film. What happens when you do an investigation? You interrogate anyone and everyone who might possibly have information that blows the case open. Interrogating does not mean accusing.

Surely you can see why it is problematic to allow the Saudis, including the bin Ladin clan, to leave while detaining scores of Pakistanis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Iranians and assorted other Middle Eastern and North African folks? Considering most of the terrorists were Saudis, and considering that there are plenty of provable links between the Saudi "government" and the al Qaida, this strikes me as deriliction of duty. You don't see that way? :shrug:

But then again, we did attack Iraq when we should have attacked Saudi Arabia...

[dissention]

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

To show that the bin Laden's and the Bush's had a monetary relationship, just like the Buish's and the Saudi internationals did. Why escort them out of the country? Also for interrogation reasons.

BTW - I agree hannity lies. I am not talking about that. I am talking about his technique of yelling, etc. I think MM employs a similar technique to make his point. He, like Hannity, does not just factually say something. He and Hannity are smarter than that. So is Randi Rhodes (sp.?) - they all know that using emotion (humor, yelling, etc.) will get them noticed. I do not blame them for it. I just recognize they all do it. Yet, the far left will NEVER admit MM uses it and that makes him similar to every other pundit who does it as well.

Michael Moore yells? I've never seen the guy yell to make a point and I'm a big fan of his. Examples, please.

I readily admit that Moore uses techniques to get butts in the seats, don't say that I "never admit that." He has to in order to get his message out. More power to him.

[strandinthewind]

I did not way MM yells. I said he, like all other pundits, uses histrionics to sell his story. Again, I, and apparently, you have no problem with that.

[dissention]

I did not way MM yells. I said he, like all other pundits, uses histrionics to sell his story. Again, I, and apparently, you have no problem with that.

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand? :wavey:

[Sugar]

I did not walk away from this film thinking Bush aided OBL.

I walked away from this film thinking that Bush had long-lasting financial relationships with the bin Ladens and that he let that color his reaction to 9/11. He didn't push where he should have pushed and he didn't demand when he should have demanded. He is weak, easily led, and not intellectually up to the role of President of the US. I have no doubt that Bush did these things at the behest, or at least the encouragement of others. I think the look on his face during those seven minutes in the classroom could characterize much of Bush's administration.

I think the invasion of Iraq was personally motivated, and AT BEST I think he thought it would be an easy victory that he could wave in front of the Americans when he realized OBL wasn't standing in the middle of the Afgan desert flipping the bird at every American plane that passed overhead.

As I said in the other post the other thing that resonates with me is the weakness of our Democratic leaders in all of this, and if someone would have stood up before now, there wouldn't be a F9/11.

[Rob67]

Interestingly, and this is what I hoped our friend Rob67, who has scurried back to his hole after being challenged on his assertion about mistruths in the movie, would touch on for us. Because as of the release of the 9/11 commission report, these flights have come into question. Evidently the report says the flights took place after the airports reopened.


Mr. Carne,

I like most people have this thing we call a "life." This "life" requires things like a job and attention to loved ones to keep it sustained. It is true that I have “scurried away.” Some of us have to actually work to survive. Unfortunately, I look at work as a time to be productive and to earn a paycheck. It is hard for me to justify spending time addressing attacks from liberals who get offended when someone disagrees with them. There is money to be made and taxes, which you wonderful liberals love so much, to be paid. More power to you if you have all the time in the world to post all day, every day. I wish I could have that kind of free time.

I will post in due time, but not until I take care of the important things in life, like my job and my family.

Peace out!

[strandinthewind]

Jason, the answer is in the film. What happens when you do an investigation? You interrogate anyone and everyone who might possibly have information that blows the case open. Interrogating does not mean accusing.

Surely you can see why it is problematic to allow the Saudis, including the bin Ladin clan, to leave while detaining scores of Pakistanis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Iranians and assorted other Middle Eastern and North African folks? Considering most of the terrorists were Saudis, and considering that there are plenty of provable links between the Saudi "government" and the al Qaida, this strikes me as deriliction of duty. You don't see that way? :shrug:

But then again, we did attack Iraq when we should have attacked Saudi Arabia...

I agree. But, I think MM was performing a very Karl Rove-esq move there. Do you really think people can disassociate OBL from all turban wearing Middle Easterners. I think they cannot. Look at Iraq. All W had to do was mention them in the same sentence and most people with the mob mentality said they were the same. They did not nase this conclusion of any overt evidence. They made it by innuendo. I think MM is doing the same. To my knowledge, the US did not stop any Middle Eastern dignitaries from leaving the US after 9/11. So, I get that on the surface MM was trying to point out that W was in bed with the Saudis. But, the point is not completely made IMO. The Saudis have been in bed with every other administration since the 60's and maybe even before that. Yet, that is not brought out. Why? Well, I think that is because it would lessen in people's heads the any link that may exist between the Saudis, the BL's, and W.

[strandinthewind]

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand? :wavey:


I admit that. But, La Rhodes is not above it. Look at the Ollie North interview. ollie North correctly said he was never convicted of a crime. That is 100% true. Yet, RR, perhaps out of ignorance, refuted him and then when he tried to explain, she went after him like a terrier on a rat when she was DEAD wrong.

[dissention]

Mr. Carne,

I like most people have this thing we call a "life." This "life" requires things like a job and attention to loved ones to keep it sustained. It is true that I have “scurried away.” Some of us have to actually work to survive. Unfortunately, I look at work as a time to be productive and to earn a paycheck. It is hard for me to justify spending time addressing attacks from liberals who get offended when someone disagrees with them. There is money to be made and taxes, which you wonderful liberals love so much, to be paid. More power to you if you have all the time in the world to post all day, every day. I wish I could have that kind of free time.

I will post in due time, but not until I take care of the important things in life, like my job and my family.

Peace out!

I guess you didn't benefit from Allah's wonderful tax cuts, eh? Poor thing.

Glad to know that you found the time to post a ****ty op-ed in your busy life. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand? :wavey:


Well, I agree on the diff, you make. I comment only on the technique!!!!!!!

BTW - La Rhodes (sp.?) is not above lying. Look at the Ollie North interview. When Ollie North, who I am no fan of by any means, said he was never convicted of a crime, RR went apoplectic. Ollie North was telling the truth - there is no way around that. He tried to explain to RR that when a conviction is overturned it is as if is never existed. Instead of seeing the truth of that, RR launched into an atteck mode. That sounds like Hannity to me :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

It is true that I have “scurried away.”

I'll let that speak for itself.

[dissention]

I admit that. But, La Rhodes is not above it. Look at the Ollie North interview. ollie North correctly said he was never convicted of a crime. That is 100% true. Yet, RR, perhaps out of ignorance, refuted him and then when he tried to explain, she went after him like a terrier on a rat when she was DEAD wrong.

No, he was convicted, then it was overturned, but the courts overturned it on a technicality and said that he was still guilty as sin. Of course, his conviction is therefore no longer valid, but it doesn't change the fact that he was convicted at one point and time. She was 100% correct.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry for the double post. I thought the first did not go through :cool:

[strandinthewind]

No, he was convicted, then it was overturned. Of course, his conviction is therefore no longer valid, but it doesn't change the fact that he was convicted at one point and time. She was 100% correct.

No she was not. He was never convicted, ever no matter what the time period indicated prior to the overturning of the false conviction. The temporal aspect confuses people. But, she was not commenting on that initially.

[dissention]

No she was not. He was never convicted, ever no matter what the time period indicated prior to the overturning of the false conviction. The temporal aspect confuses people. But, she was not commenting on that initially.

Yes, he was convicted. Then it was overturned with the courts saying that he was still guilty in their eyes.

[CarneVaca]

I agree. But, I think MM was performing a very Karl Rove-esq move there.

The big difference is that Karl Rove is surreptitiously advising the president of the United States, who is making decisions that affect the whole world. Michael Moore is making a movie with a viewpoint he is unabashedly trying to get across.

Do you really think people can disassociate OBL from all turban wearing Middle Easterners. I think they cannot.

I'll concede that point. Yet, I would have been perturbed by it only if Moore were inciting violence against them. All he is doing is establishing a link between the bin Ladins and the Bushes.

The Saudis have been in bed with every other administration since the 60's and maybe even before that. Yet, that is not brought out. Why? Well, I think that is because it would lessen in people's heads the any link that may exist between the Saudis, the BL's, and W.

No, it's because no other president had links as tight with the Saudis as Georgie and his dad. If you can show evidence that proves otherwise, I am open. Bin Ladin money very probably floated George Bush's failure of an oil company in Texas. Why would the Saudis invest in a loser oil field in Texas run by a complete moron? Don't you think that is a legitimate question?

[dissention]

Don't bother, Carne, he won't read it. He's too busy researching to see if Ollie North was convicted. Which he was, on three counts. :wavey:

[Rob67]

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm?? ;)

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.


But the problem is...Moore and others have short-term memory. Moore conviently forgets to include some of these soundbites and speeches. Every politician lies and flips positions...*sigh*...I'll post this again...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[strandinthewind]

Yes, he was convicted. Then it was overturned with the courts saying that he was still guilty in their eyes.

I am not explaining this again, it does not matter if the courts thought he was innocent or guilty. They overturned his conviction. That means it is as if IT NEVER EXISTED period - end of story - there is no getting around that no matter how much you dislike Ollie North. I can't stand him either, but my dislike of him does not mean the law does not apply to him nor does it make untrue the statement that legally he was never convicted, even though he may very well be guilty as sin, which he was. SHEEBUS!

AND - my point was and is La Rhodes acted just like that jerk Hannity when she was called out on this. She screamed up and down and refused to let Ollie North get a word in edgewise to explain the law to her - she apparently would rather yell the loudest and sound ignorant by doing so. So, that is the parralell I was trying to draw.

[Rob67]

I'll let that speak for itself.

It’s interesting that you want me to debate the Moore film in this thread as opposed to the other thread dedicated to that very topic. But Diss and you refuse to address the talking points in the original post of THIS thread. Do they make too much sense? Are personal attacks the best the libs here have to offer?? Come on now!!! I expect better from Mac fans!

Were your feelings hurt by the title of the original post? Did it touch a nerve?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…. :shrug: :D

Rob :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

No, it's because no other president had links as tight with the Saudis as Georgie and his dad. If you can show evidence that proves otherwise, I am open. Bin Ladin money very probably floated George Bush's failure of an oil company in Texas. Why would the Saudis invest in a loser oil field in Texas run by a complete moron? Don't you think that is a legitimate question?

Well, let's see, like 15 years ago James R, Bath gave W. $50,000 to help launch W's oil company called Arbusto. Mr. Bath served in the Texas NG with W and is a friend of the Bushes who served as a financial advisor to a brother of OBL. He is a shadey character. Although many believe there are other connections and that the BL had other investments in this oil company, there are not as provable. But, even if they are, that was a long time ago - June 1977 to be exact :shrug: And - if all they can come up with is a $50,000 investment 15 years ago, I am not buying that :laugh: $50,000 is a drop in the bucket when we are talking about oil money.

[CarneVaca]

Were your feelings hurt by the title of the original post? Did it touch a nerve?


Oh, yeah, I'm scarred for life.

Can you actually post an original thought? All you do is resort to posting drivel from conservatives with their heads stuck up their asses. You just went and quoted something about Democrats wanting to strike Iraq. Do you realize how little that means to me? I disagreed with them about it as I disagree with your beloved Fascist administration.

I do my own thinking.

Now, what are the mistruths in Moore's movie? Don't quote me some drivel from some idiot. I want you to tell us what you know is not factual in Fahrenheit 9/11.

[Bella Figura]

how I hate coming back later...I am totally confused :laugh:

by dissention "Whoa, I wasn't making things personal, there's no reason for you to do so.

As for my sig, the intention wasn't to browbeat you, I don't even know you. It's there as a sign of my support of the next president of the United States, Mr. John Kerry." I was speaking directly to you but I did not intend on making a personal attack just pointing out my perceptions of you and your agenda through the lens of my pc monitor in support of my conviction that everyone now has an agenda and is more interested in bullying people with their opinions than intelligently persuading them. and the last pic of your sig does show a political bias or at the very least points out the fraility of another human being for humourous effect.

by dissention "Yes. Americans are the most ignorant people on the face of the earth and wouldn't pay attention to political issues that affect them if those issues flew up and bit them in their McDonalds-enlarged asses. The only reason this is doing so well is because of the controversy. Just as it was the popular thing to do to see "Passion of the Christ," it's the popular thing to do to see this film. Hopefully it will change some ignorant minds. I mean, there was obviously a few people in the showing I went to that didn't get most of it; it flew right over their heads. For all they know, the Carlyle Group is a Catholic school in the mid-west. But, the majority of people were greatly affected by what they saw and left with tears in their eyes. That's wonderful, if you ask moi." Is this a personal attack??? am I truly one of the most ignorant people on the face of the earth?? after all, I am an American. and if my mind is so ignorant as evidenced by your post, how can you ever hope to change it? and if you do change my mind, because of my aforementioned ignorance, I'll still yet remain an ignorant American, just one who supports Michael Moore and his causes through some browbeating of his own. He at the very least held me captive by his movie for a few hours. and I'm not letting Mel off the hook for the Passion, that was brutal captivity...I used to be entertained when going to the movies, now the liberals and conservatives are really getting into all media outlets, first new, then radio, then talk, now the movies...is anyplace safe???

[dissention]

I am not explaining this again, it does not matter if the courts thought he was innocent or guilty. They overturned his conviction. That means it is as if IT NEVER EXISTED period - end of story - there is no getting around that no matter how much you dislike Ollie North. I can't stand him either, but my dislike of him does not mean the law does not apply to him nor does it make untrue the statement that legally he was never convicted, even though he may very well be guilty as sin, which he was. SHEEBUS!

AND - my point was and is La Rhodes acted just like that jerk Hannity when she was called out on this. She screamed up and down and refused to let Ollie North get a word in edgewise to explain the law to her - she apparently would rather yell the loudest and sound ignorant by doing so. So, that is the parralell I was trying to draw.

I didn't know you had heard the interview. I only posted a transcript. ;)

Ollie North can say that he was never convicted, but that's simply not true. He WAS convicted, no matter if it was overturned or not. It does not negate the fact that he was convicted and stayed convicted for three years. He was convicted on three charges: obstructing Congress, destroying documents relating to a crime, and accepting illegal bribes. :wavey:

[dissention]

Now, what are the mistruths in Moore's movie? Don't quote me some drivel from some idiot. I want you to tell us what you know is not factual in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Exactly.

Rob brought up the moore film in this thread, called it "ridiculous," and refuses to explain how it is ridiculous. He says it is full of half truths and lies, yet can't, or won't, point any out. I suspect he's waiting for Faux News to post their comprehensive assessment of the film. Post something original for once, not the ramblings of every other raging conservative.

[CarneVaca]

Well, let's see, like 15 years ago James R, Bath gave W. $50,000 to help launch W's oil company called Arbusto. Mr. Bath served in the Texas NG with W and is a friend of the Bushes who served as a financial advisor to a brother of OBL. He is a shadey character. Although many believe there are other connections and that the BL had other investments in this oil company, there are not as provable. But, even if they are, that was a long time ago - June 1977 to be exact :shrug: And - if all they can come up with is a $50,000 investment 15 years ago, I am not buying that :laugh: $50,000 is a drop in the bucket when we are talking about oil money.

Gee, Jason, did you forget Osama's brother Salem was partners with Georgie boy? Salem invested money when Arbuston was launched in 1977. It's not like Bath went around the community with hat in hand. He got the money from Osama's own brother.

What exactly did you like about the movie again?

Salem died mysteriously in 1988, by the way.

[Rob67]

Oh, yeah, I'm scarred for life.

Can you actually post an original thought? All you do is resort to posting drivel from conservatives with their heads stuck up their asses. You just went and quoted something about Democrats wanting to strike Iraq. Do you realize how little that means to me? I disagreed with them about it as I disagree with your beloved Fascist administration.

I do my own thinking.

Now, what are the mistruths in Moore's movie? Don't quote me some drivel from some idiot. I want you to tell us what you know is not factual in Fahrenheit 9/11.

:laugh:

liberals....always avoiding the topic. :rolleyes:

Rob :cool:

PS. See the Moore thread for my views on his film...

[dissention]

I was speaking directly to you but I did not intend on making a personal attack just pointing out my perceptions of you and your agenda through the lens of my pc monitor. the last pic of your sig does show a political bias or at the very least points out the fraility of another human being for humourous effect.

I didn't know picking your nose made you frail. I was under the impression it just made you a pig.

I do have an agenda and every person on this board knows what it is. But that's no reason to mock me or anyone else and sarcastically ask if we're trying to enlighten and educate people. The problem is, the American people aren't educated about such matters; hopefully the few people on thsi baord who are can help in educating them. Of course, we all have biases, but those biases do not negate the facts or articles that we post.

Is this a personal attack??? am I truly one of the most ignorant people on the face of the earth?? after all, I am an American. and if my mind is so ignorant as evidenced by your post, how can you ever hope to change it? and if you do change my mind, because of my aforementioned ignorance, I'll still yet remain an ignorant American, just one who supports Michael Moore and his causes.

No, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a general attack on those who aren't educated about political affairs. You obviously aren't one of them if you're partaking in this thread. ;) And that was posted before you even posted in this thread. You simply cannot refute the fact that this country is ignorant about such issues; over half of the country still believes Saddam was involved in 9/11. :laugh:

[dissention]

:laugh:

always avoiding the topic. :rolleyes:

:laugh: If that's the case (which I can assure you it isn't), you have something in common with us.

PS. See the Moore thread for my views on his film...

I did, there's nothing there. And there won't be anything substantial because you can't prove that he lied once in that film.

[CarneVaca]

:laugh:

liberals....always avoiding the topic. :rolleyes:

Rob :cool:

PS. See the Moore thread for my views on his film...

No, I want you to explain what you meant by ridiculous and mistruths. You brought it up here. You tell us here.

Or are you one of those kids who punches a guy in the face and runs as fast as he can? Because that's what you do when you post something and refuse to back it up when called on it.

[Wild Heart]

[QUOTE=dissention].................so he has to over-analyze every frame of it so as not to get flamed by the two conservatives around here......


Make that three...........although technically I'm a lurker Ledgie and not an active poster anymore. I stopped posting sometime ago after the realization that this board has become increasingly intolerate to opposing views and seeing how anyone expressing an opinion outside of the far left is ridiculed. I was a diehard Rush Limbaugh hating tree hugging liberal Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 when I first joined this board. I even got flamed on this very site once for making a Republican joke. I have been liberal all of my adult life until the morning of September 11, 2001, after watching the second tower fall, I stunned myself when I realized all I could think is Thank God Bush is President. The change wasn't immediate but it was enough to make me to look deeper into my opinions and values. Two and a half years later I'm now a Hannity & O'Reilly loving One Nation Under God Go NRA Bush for President conservative. I don't agree with everything Bush does, I do not like Dick Cheney, I still don't care for Limbaugh and I think Ann Coulter needs to take a pill (or get laid, no offense ladies).

I began to feel unwelcomed here after my political views changed, even though I steered clear of the political debates, so I slipped into lurker status. I never realized how intolerate people on this board can be until I stepped over to the "wrong" side of the fence. Now I just check in occasionally to see what's up with the band but it even spills over into the FM forums. You can't even read a thread without being bombarded with Vote For John Kerry and Anti Bush signatures. I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have those signatures because I believe in free speech but I'd hate to see the backlash if I had a Vote For George W. Bush and anti Democrat signature because free speech only applys around here if you share the majority's opinion. It would be more ugly than I could dare to imagine. I would never have even saw this thread if a misplaced thread in the Rumours forum had not lead me here out of curiosity over what was being said about the Moore film.

Well I've said too much already and I'm sure the liberals are foaming at the mouth and ready to pounce on the lone conservative. And no I have not seen the Moore film. I would really like to see it but I didn't even like Moore when I was a liberal. He will make millions but not one cent from me.

I guess to point of my post is that friendly debate is one thing and everybody has different opinions but the level of intolerance for opposing views on this board is outrageous and not just in political threads. I'm sure I'm not the only Ledgie who has chosen lurker status or completely left the board because they feel unwelcome because they do not agree with the majority on certain issues whether it be political, moral or the Mac themselves. I think it's very sad how bipolarized we've become and our own Ledge is an example.

[strandinthewind]

Ollie North can say that he was never convicted, but that's simply not true. He WAS convicted, no matter if it was overturned or not. It does not negate the fact that he was convicted and stayed convicted for three years.

No he was not and for you to say so shows contempt of the law and an ignorance I have never before seen in you.

Again, I am no fan of Ollie North, but he was never convicted. But, you go right on saying that no matter how much of an idiot, when you most certainly are not :xoxo: , it makes you sound like :cool: That is such a Sean Hannity and RR thing to do. When faced with the facts, state a lie and not back down. Just admit it - you are dead wrong here and I am right - again - the overturning of Ollie Noth's conviction makes him never convicted. I totally agree it does not speak to his culpability. It just means he was never convicted.

[dissention]

I guess to point of my post is that friendly debate is one thing and everybody has different opinions but the level of intolerance for opposing views on this board is outrageous and not just in political threads. I'm sure I'm not the only Ledgie who has chosen lurker status or completely left the board because they feel unwelcome because they do not agree with the majority on certain issues whether it be political, moral or the Mac themselves. I think it's very sad how bipolarized we've become and our own Ledge is an example.

That's sad, IMO. No one should have to stop posting because their opinions aren't of the majority. That never stopped me form posting on the Stevie board. :laugh:

I read your post and am not going to flame you because you made your point sin a respectful manner. So, why do you support Bush? Seriously.

[dissention]

No he was not and for you to say so shows contempt of the law and an ignorance I have never before seen in you.

Again, I am no fan of Ollie North, but he was never convicted. But, you go right on saying that no matter how much of an idiot, when you most certainly are not :xoxo: , it makes you sound like :cool: That is such a Sean Hannity and RR thing to do. When faced with the facts, state a lie and not back down. Just admit it - you are dead wrong here and I am right - again - the overturning of Ollie Noth's conviction makes him never convicted. I totally agree it does not speak to his culpability. It just means he was never convicted.

Then I'm proudly ignorant when it comes to Ollie North, war criminal. :wavey:

His conviction was overturned. But he must've been convicted at one point and time in order for it to be overturned. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Gee, Jason, did you forget Osama's brother Salem was partners with Georgie boy? Salem invested money when Arbuston was launched in 1977. It's not like Bath went around the community with hat in hand. He got the money from Osama's own brother. . . Salem died mysteriously in 1988, by the way.

I know that. Bath was trustee or simething like that. But my point is all of this conspiracy for $50,000 15 years ago. That hardly is a smoking gun :shrug: but, it is evidence nonetheless - I readily admit that.

[Bella Figura]

ah to pick or not to pick???...everyone does piggish things but very few have their pictures snapped...my own hubby is still in shock over my humanity and we've been together 20 years.

but as for mocking and being sarcastic, that was not my intention but it was my intention to show how any person's passionate agenda can be an imposition on another's intellect. Adults have a great capacity to self-educate but at this point the people in the public sphere be it media or politics feel some kind of obligation to assault adults with their facts, figures, passion, agenda or loudmouths rather then make smart debate and leave it up to us to decide it's merits. and now more than ever, the Internet is one of the few places which still provides a forum for intelligent debate. so I have to support Rob for putting up a thread in direct conflict to the let's support Michael Moore's movie because it's great, true, patriotic whatever thread!!!

[strandinthewind]

Then I'm proudly ignorant when it comes to Ollie North, war criminal. :wavey:

His conviction was overturned. But he must've been convicted at one point and time in order for it to be overturned. ;)

Are you pulling my leg because if you are stop, please.

I do not know what you do not get about this. The overturning of a conviction makes it like the original conviction never existed. I do not know how elese to explain it. I guess for those three years you could say Ollie North was convicted. But, once the court overturned it, you could no longer day that. Again, it is as if the original conviction never existed.

Please stop this if you are just joking with me.

[CarneVaca]

I began to feel unwelcomed here after my political views changed, even though I steered clear of the political debates, so I slipped into lurker status. I never realized how intolerate people on this board can be until I stepped over to the "wrong" side of the fence.

I am well aware of the intolerance from both sides, believe me. I get it from the Democrats, the Republicans and the fascists. But rather than complain about it, I decide whether I want to continue participating in these discussions or to pass on them. Either decision is acceptable, as far as I can tell.

But coming on here just to tell the rest of us how much better you are because you see the error of our ways is a bit silly. If you don't want to participate, that is your choice. But what do you gain by telling us how intolerant we are and therefore you will no longer participate? Are we supposed to stop, reevaluate our behavior and try to reform? Is that your goal?

I just think it's sad that you decided on Sept. 11 that siding with the warmongers and the blood-thirsters was the way to respond to the attacks. You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?

[CarneVaca]

I know that. Bath was trustee or simething like that. But my point is all of this conspiracy for $50,000 15 years ago. That hardly is a smoking gun :shrug: but, it is evidence nonetheless - I readily admit that.

Did you just miss my point, Jason? I think you did. I just pointed out you did exactly what you accuse Michael Moore of doing--telling only part of the story.

Isn't wonderfully human and satisfying to frame our arguments in a way that suits the point of view we're trying to put forth?

[Bella Figura]

Wild Heart says "Make that three...........although technically I'm a lurker Ledgie and not an active poster anymore. I stopped posting sometime ago after the realization that this board has become increasingly intolerate to opposing views and seeing how anyone expressing an opinion outside of the far left is ridiculed."

this is what I do not want to see happen on the Ledge, all should feel welcome here to post whatever political opinion they have on ChitChat without feeling they are "ignorant" but I do understand how you feel and have been lurky lately myself...but I did post today and you did too, so intellect with opposing views can stand for something

"I guess to point of my post is that friendly debate is one thing and everybody has different opinions but the level of intolerance for opposing views on this board is outrageous and not just in political threads. I'm sure I'm not the only Ledgie who has chosen lurker status or completely left the board because they feel unwelcome because they do not agree with the majority on certain issues whether it be political, moral or the Mac themselves. I think it's very sad how bipolarized we've become and our own Ledge is an example..."

maybe it will calm down after the election but probably not because whoever wins, passion and hate not intellect, and not the people are ruling this country...

Carne says "You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?" no we have not so I say nuke 'em all, Ollie, the Saudis, MM, Mick, John, Lindsey and Stevie...and that damn Christine, how dare she make an independent solo record...

oops I just flip-flopped mid-post!!

[dissention]

Are you pulling my leg because if you are stop, please.

I do not know what you do not get about this. The overturning of a conviction makes it like the original conviction never existed. I do not know how elese to explain it. I guess for those three years you could say Ollie North was convicted. But, once the court overturned it, you could no longer day that. Again, it is as if the original conviction never existed.

Please stop this if you are just joking with me.

I'm not joking, Jason. :laugh: You've known me long enough to when I'm joking.

I accept that his conviction was overturned and that he is no longer a convicted war criminal in the mind of the public. But he is and always will be in my eyes. That's all I'm saying.

[dissention]

I am well aware of the intolerance from both sides, believe me. I get it from the Democrats, the Republicans and the fascists. But rather than complain about it, I decide whether I want to continue participating in these discussions or to pass on them. Either decision is acceptable, as far as I can tell.

But coming on here just to tell the rest of us how much better you are because you see the error of our ways is a bit silly. If you don't want to participate, that is your choice. But what do you gain by telling us how intolerant we are and therefore you will no longer participate? Are we supposed to stop, reevaluate our behavior and try to reform? Is that your goal?

I just think it's sad that you decided on Sept. 11 that siding with the warmongers and the blood-thirsters was the way to respond to the attacks. You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?

Very good points, Carne. :)

[gldstwmn]

Name them.


Hee. This should be good.

[CarneVaca]

Hee. This should be good.

Well, he refuses to do it. But I already characterized his actions quite aptly in another post...

[dissention]

Well, he refuses to do it.

He doesn't refuse, he's simply not able to do it.

[strandinthewind]

I just think it's sad that you decided on Sept. 11 that siding with the warmongers and the blood-thirsters was the way to respond to the attacks. You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?

Perhaps we should send OBL to sensitivity training :rolleyes:

That BTW was rank sarcasm and I was not being serious :cool:

Seriously, I know of no other to deal with people like him and the Taliban that provided him safety, but swore he could never do such a thing and was not there, etc. They seemingly understand only one thing and that unfortunately is violence. I hate it. But I know that is the way it is. I also fully realize that that way of thinking (our's and their's) is not the right road, but I know of no other. That speaks less of all involved as far as I am concerned.

Also, I am unsure if we stopped protecting Israel and withdrew all of our support from the Middle East and never went there again, which is what they say they want, that they would stop. Maybe it would be worth the try. In any event, rushing to war in Iraq certainly made us more enemies. Although the final product of the new Iraqi govt. remains to be seen, so far that has not won us a tremendous amount of new friends.

[gldstwmn]

You know something? Right about now I wouldn't mind a couple of riots...

I'm willing to bet it's going to happen soon and in your city, unfortunately. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not joking, Jason. :laugh: You've known me long enough to when I'm joking.

I accept that his conviction was overturned and that he is no longer a convicted war criminal in the mind of the public. But he is and always will be in my eyes. That's all I'm saying.

That is not what you said, you said he was convicted, which he never was according to the court that overturned his false convictions. Thus, it is not "in the mind of the public" it is in the mind of the law. What you mean is he is guilty. I, and the court, agree with you there. But, they are two different things and saying he was convicted is just flat out wrong and there are no two ways about it.

But, detante already.

[gldstwmn]

I am not doing that. Didn't I say it was effective and met his goals - that is far from blasting the film?

...always seems to heal the wounds if I can get you to dance...'

Everybody sing now! :woohoo:

[The Tower]

It does make, to quote Carne, dubious associations to wit - so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US?

I think that's a pretty big deal. I wouldn't consider the idea of letting a whole bunch of people who could possibly have information related to 9/11 leave the country a "so what".

MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked.

I didn't see that at all. Moore was trying to get people to open up their eyes as to why Dubya ditched the idea of really going after Osama vs. invading Iraq.

Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack.

I don't think there was enough investigation to be able to make this statement. If you consider the fact that the gov't has been detaining suspicious people for almost two years without outside contact, I find it a little disturbing that all those Saudis were able to leave after only two days!

He knows that the use of the SA name and the bin Laden (there are hundreds in that immedicate family) will cause people to somehow in their heads think W aided OBL. Intererstingly, W did this same technique with linking OBL with Iraq.

If Moore wants to arouse some kind of suspicion with regard to the Bushes connection to Saudis, that is food for debate. Dubya's lies in connecting Al Qaeda to Iraq has resulted in the death of thousands and the ruin of the American worldview.

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.

I don't think that showing "proud" American parents would have done anything to alter the plight of the parent Moore showcased. I doubt there are any parents that would be proud that their children died for any reason- for an unnecessary war, even more so. I think one of the most poignant parts of the movie was when Moore said that the soldiers enlisted in the military with the tacet understanding that they would have to go to war only when necessary, and now, how can we as citizens look them in the eye after this betrayal.

[Wild Heart]

So, why do you support Bush? Seriously.

Oh no, and I say this with the upmost respect, you're not leading this lamb to slaughter. I'm not about to open myself up for that flaming!

And to CarneVaca - I'm not at all surprised at your response to my post. I never said I was better than anyone because I'm certainly not! If that was implied, then I'm truly sorry.

Frankly I personally have nothing to gain. I've been frustrated with the climate of this board for sometime and guess I felt the need to unload. I guess, maybe, my goal was to make people stop and think before they speak (or type). Is respecting other people's feelings or opinions such a bad thing (or "silly")?

My only response to your comment about Sept. 11 is it's not about eye for an eye and read my response to dissention.

[strandinthewind]

...always seems to heal the wounds if I can get you to dance...'

Everybody sing now! :woohoo:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dissention]

I don't think that showing "proud" American parents would have done anything to alter the plight of the parent Moore showcased. I doubt there are any parents that would be proud that their children died for any reason- for an unnecessary war, even more so. I think one of the most poignant parts of the movie was when Moore said that the soldiers enlisted in the military with the tacet understanding that they would have to go to war only when necessary, and now, how can we as citizens look them in the eye after this betrayal.

Methinks Jason needs to brush up on his poetry and read "War Is Kind." Or "Dulce et Decorum Est."

[strandinthewind]

Tower and Dissention (edit) - I am not the one saying the people on the 9/13 planes had no terrorist connection, the media has reported it and Clark and others have said it. I was just going on that.

AND - my point was not to take away from that woman lamenting the loss of her son. Her emotions were real and need no validation from me - who am i to tell her anything other than I am sorry for her tremendous loss. I was just saying MM's use of that one person ignored that other people who are proud of the way their sons died. I know they exist becuase I know one. I also know that a quick goole search on this topic will produce others. So, while we may question the validity of the war, I think it is incorrect to say there are no parents out there who do not respect the way their soldier children died :shrug: and MM does not show these. Why? Well, I think it is because he knew that would detract from his propoganda. He said he had a point to make and he shows no evidence contrary to that point.

[dissention]

Oh no, and I say this with the upmost respect, you're not leading this lamb to slaughter. I'm not about to open myself up for that flaming!

And to CarneVaca - I'm not at all surprised at your response to my post. I never said I was better than anyone because I'm certainly not! If that was implied, then I'm truly sorry.

Frankly I personally have nothing to gain. I've been frustrated with the climate of this board for sometime and guess I felt the need to unload. I guess, maybe, my goal was to make people stop and think before they speak (or type). Is respecting other people's feelings or opinions such a bad thing (or "silly")?

My only response to your comment about Sept. 11 is it's not about eye for an eye and read my response to dissention.

I understand your intent, but you simply can't believe that your post would have any effect if you don't explain yourself. That's all.

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, that way they can pick and choose which ballots to count and then give the Supreme Court the power to select a president.

Let me get some eggs ready for inauguration day.

And yet, they can't decide the Padilla case. Go figure. :shrug:

[dissention]

Tower and Dissention (edit) - I am not the one saying the people on the 9/13 planes had no terrorist connection, the media has reported it and Clark and others have said it. I was just going on that.

AND - my point was not to take away from that woman lamenting the loss of her sin. Her emotions were real and need no validation from me. I was just saying MM's use of that one person ignored that other people who are proud of the way their sons died. I know they exist becuase I know one. I also know that a quick goole search on this topic will produce others. So, while we may question the validity of the war, I think it is incorrect to say there are no parents out there who do not respect the way their soldier children died :shrug: and MM does not show these. Why? Well, I think it is because he knew that would detract from his propoganda. He said he had a point to make and he shows no evidence contrary to that point.

Fact: They did not interview all of the bin Laden's, only a select few.

Fact: There is no record of a single Saudi being interviewed.

Fact: Michael Moore did not say that people have no respect for the way their children died.

[strandinthewind]

Tone - I know Dissention, Carne, Goldie and I (and a few others) growl and bark at each other. But, I think it is important to realize we are all friends and like each other despite our misgivings politically!!!!!!! I guess that tone does not really come across too often. So, here is the post where it does!!!!! :woohoo:

[Bella Figura]

dissention says of Wild Heart "I understand your intent, but you simply can't believe that your post would have any effect if you don't explain yourself. That's all."


his original post did explain himself...he used to be a liberal, now he's a conservative because of September 11th and he no longer feels comfortable posting on this board.

[dissention]

his post did explain himself...he used to be a liberal and now he's a conservative because of September 11th and he no longer feels comfortable posting on this board.

No, he didn't. He was asked twice to explain himself a bit more and he refused.

[Bella Figura]

why do you need more?? it was plainly stated and only needed a little followup

wow these posts are going fast

[dissention]

Tone - I know Dissention, Carne, Goldie and I (and a few others) growl and bark at each other. But, I think it is important to realize we are all friends and like each other despite our misgivings politically!!!!!!! I guess that tone does not really come across too often. So, here is the post where it does!!!!! :woohoo:

Amen. We are vicious pr*cks, but we all like each other a lot. :laugh:

[Wild Heart]

dissention says of Wild Heart "I understand your intent, but you simply can't believe that your post would have any effect if you don't explain yourself. That's all."


his post did explain himself...he used to be a liberal, now he's a conservative because of September 11th and he no longer feels comfortable posting on this board.

Actually, he's a she. :laugh: :lol:

[dissention]

why do you need more?? it was plainly stated and only need a little followup

Because he simply stated he switched his political affiliations, supported Bush, and left a lot of things left to interpretation. If I want to ask him to expound on his thoughts, that's my right. It's his right not to do so, but it kind of shoots down the whole point of his post.

[Bella Figura]

sorry your Ann Coulter comment threw me off :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Fact: They did not interview all of the bin Laden's, only a select few.

Fact: There is no record of a single Saudi being interviewed.

Fact: Michael Moore did not say that people have no respect for the way their children died.

None of these three addresses my points which were:

Tell that to Clark - he let them go. He most have known something, esp. since they were diplomats and/or VIP's :shrug: The govt. probably had a file on them already. And - to my knowledge none of them subsequently have had any connections to the events of 9/11 other than an estranged family member, in a family of many 100's, organized it.

MM showed no people proud of the way their sons died and believe in this cause.

[Bella Figura]

you just need to read her post several times to understand where she is coming from and then accept her position, her intellect and not judge it as ignorance which needs to be corrected, that's all

[dissention]

sorry your Ann Coulter comment threw me off :wavey:

Which comment was that? I'm usually never linked to Coultergeist, explain.

[dissention]

you just need to read her post several times to understand where she is coming from and then accept her position, her intellect and not judge it as ignorance which needs to be corrected, that's all

I never said it was ignorance that needed to be corrected, don't put words in my mouth. I asked her to expound on her thoughts, she wouldn't, end of story.

[Bella Figura]

thanks for the convo everyone!!!! gotta a bus to catch!!! Feel free to flame!! Nite

[gldstwmn]

But there in is my point - the far right thinks Hannity is a Patriot because he uses similar tools to convey his message :shrug:


Similar tools? He's a f*cking liar.

[dissention]

None of these three addresses my points which were:

Tell that to Clark - he let them go. He most have known something, esp. since they were diplomats and/or VIP's :shrug: The govt. probably had a file on them already. And - to my knowledge none of them subsequently have had any connections to the events of 9/11 other than an estranged family member, in a family of many 100's, organized it.

MM showed no people proud of the way their sons died and believe in this cause.

I don't put Clarke up on a pedestal. I believe him about Iraq because it's been coroborrated by other sources. And I could care less what files they ahd on those Saudi's, do your job and interrogate them. None of them have connections because they were never investigated.

And just because Michael Moore showed no proud families, it doesn't mean that he's saying there are none. Learn to differentiate.

[gldstwmn]

so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US. MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked. Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack :

Prove it. :shrug:

[dissention]

thanks for the convo everyone!!!! gotta a bus to catch!!! Feel free to flame!! Nite

Hit and run, eh? :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Similar tools? He's a f*cking liar.


FOR THE 10,000th TIME - I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LYING - SHEEBUS

I agree hannity lies - big woooo - they all do in carying shades and spin.

I am talking about the method. They all do it. I hate it, but recognize they have to if they want to sell their stuff.

What's the line from "Gypsy" - Ya Gotta have a gimmick if you wanna get ahead :laugh:

[dissention]

Prove it. :shrug:

He can't because they weren't investigated.

[gldstwmn]

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.



Mrs. Lipscomb. Certainly, you didn't miss Mrs. Lipscomb?

[dissention]

What's the line from "Gypsy" - Ya Gotta have a gimmick if you wanna get ahead :laugh:

Yet you fault Moore for his gimmick.

[gldstwmn]

This has been widely reported. From about Sept. 12, when Osama's name became a household word, it was reported again and again that he was the black sheep of the bin Ladin family.



Thing is, he's not the black sheep of the family. That's spin. Where do people think he's getting his money from? :confused:

[strandinthewind]

I don't put Clarke up on a pedestal. I believe him about Iraq because it's been coroborrated by other sources. And I could care less what files they ahd on those Saudi's, do your job and interrogate them. None of them have connections because they were never investigated

My point was and is we know who was on those planes and no subsequent investigation reveals anything. Don't you think MM would have shown that if he could have :shrug: Certainly he checked.


And just because Michael Moore showed no proud families, it doesn't mean that he's saying there are none. Learn to differentiate.

I know that and said it before. Again, stop the spin :cool: My point, which you have not addresse, is MM shows only one side. MM does not differentiate. I think he knows people (certainly in his target demographic) will look at that and think they all died in vain and this woman's testimony supports that. The fairer method IMO would have been to show a proud parent and let the audience make up its own mind. But, he knows he cannot do that for a variety of reasons. So, he does not.

[strandinthewind]

Prove it. :shrug:

Please see the last two pages :laugh:

Again, no one can prove they did. Certainly MM would if he could, but he could not.

Interestingly, should we have investigated all Saudi nationals that left soon after 9/11.

[strandinthewind]

Mrs. Lipscomb. Certainly, you didn't miss Mrs. Lipscomb?
Explain what you mean?

[gldstwmn]

Interestingly, and this is what I hoped our friend Rob67, who has scurried back to his hole after being challenged on his assertion about mistruths in the movie, would touch on for us. Because as of the release of the 9/11 commission report, these flights have come into question. Evidently the report says the flights took place after the airports reopened.

Let's say Moore got this wrong. Whose fault is that? These flights taking place during the shutdown of US airspace have been reported for at least a year. I believe even the Times and Washington Post reported them. If the 9/11 commission debunks this as a myth after the movie has already been made, whose fault is it? After all, the flights had been accepted as fact until then. And why didn't the commission release its report earlier? Didn't the administration have something to do with the delays?

Having said all that, I am still skeptical about the story of these flights. If Clarke says, in the context of the flights taking place during the shutdown of the airspace, that he approved them, not the White House, but the commission says they took place after the airspace was reopened, who is right? If the commission has taken Clarke's testimony and made it part of its findings in some things but has chosen to differ with him on this, then I must ask why. Am I missing something?



http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
SNOPES: Members of the Bin Laden family and several
Saudis MAY have left the US while almost all flights
were still grounded until Friday the 14th of
September, 2001. I have not found any evidence
otherwise. Not in any Newsweek article or in the 911
commissions reports, but I did find this on the Snopes
Urban Legend Reference pages (link to follow):

"However, records obtained from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) seem to indicate that one flight carrying
approximately 46 Saudi citizens may have left the U.S.
from New York as early as September 13, before the
general ban on air travel was lifted. The records do
not identify who these passengers may have been — bin
Laden relatives, royal family members, or other Saudi
nationals. (The "Class of Admission" column in the
document lists the departing passengers as a mixture
of foreign government officials and their employees
and temporary visitors to the U.S. for either business
or pleasure.)"

[strandinthewind]

Yet you fault Moore for his gimmick.

No I do not. Please show where I did that in this film. I am just pointing it out and discussing it. I think he used it very effectively. I also think it is the same thing the other pundits you all fault use.

[Wild Heart]

Because he simply stated he switched his political affiliations, supported Bush, and left a lot of things left to interpretation. If I want to ask him to expound on his thoughts, that's my right. It's his right not to do so, but it kind of shoots down the whole point of his post.

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My point was that The Ledge in general has seemed like an unwelcoming climate for opposing views, which in my case happen to be conservative. There is alot of intolerance and disrespect. My political affilation has nothing to do with it except for the fact that I'm in the minority and I was attempting to show you the minority point of view. I only shared my political affiliation to assist in making this point but instead it's become blood in the water.

You keep asking for explanation of why I support Bush now and I have refused. I will continue to refuse because history has shown me what happens to people who support Bush on The Ledge. It is happening as I type.

I have my reasons for changing sides. I know what they are and I believe in them as passionately as you believe in your views. I will not put myself on the butcher block for you, CarneVaca or anyone else. It wasn't the point of my original post anyway.

[dissention]

No I do not. Please show where I did that in this film. I am just pointing it out and discussing it. I think he used it very effectively. I also think it is the same thing the other pundits you all fault use.

You've said numeorus times that Moore's approach lends him less credibility. If that's not faulting him, I don't know what is.

[strandinthewind]

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My point was that The Ledge in general has seemed like an unwelcoming climate for opposing views, which in my case happen to be conservative. There is alot of intolerance and disrespect. My political affilation has nothing to do with it except for the fact that I'm in the minority and I was attempting to show you the minority point of view. I only shared my political affiliation to assist in making this point but instead it's become blood in the water.

You keep asking for explanation of why I support Bush now and I have refused. I will continue to refuse because history has shown me what happens to people who support Bush on The Ledge. It is happening as I type.

I have my reasons for changing sides. I know what they are and I believe in them as passionately as you believe in your views. I will not put myself on the butcher block for you, CarneVaca or anyone else. It was the point of my original post anyway.

As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct. If you said I like W because:

he is strong on terror

the economy has gotten better

I support the war in Iraq

which are the usual iems, no one would have said "I respect your opinion" and here is why I do not think that. You would get pounced on. That is sad to me. And, although I try not to, I am guilty of it as well.

[gldstwmn]

The Saudis have been in bed with every other administration since the 60's and maybe even before that. Yet, that is not brought out. Why? Well, I think that is because it would lessen in people's heads the any link that may exist between the Saudis, the BL's, and W.

We're not voting for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. That's not the point of this movie. The main objective of this film is to remedy the biggest problem our country now has: it's unelected commander in chief.

[strandinthewind]

You've said numeorus times that Moore's approach lends him less credibility. If that's not faulting him, I don't know what is.

Well, it does, but I also said it lessens the credibility of Hannity, Rhodes, etc. So, I am unsure how that supports you original statements.

Again, I think this movie is well made propoganda. It is not a fair and balanced look. It was never meant to be. Yet, people tout it as if it is. I am commenting on that. I applaud MM for making this film. I just wish he had shown both sides a little more. I think not doing that negates the credibility of what he is saying as does the use on the Bonanza music, the ice cream truck, etc. But, I still think it is a good film.

[strandinthewind]

We're not voting for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. That's not the point of this movie. The main objective of this film is to remedy the biggest problem our country now has: it's unelected commander in chief.
I agree and have repeatedly said that.

BTW and again, wehen the USSC decides something it is the law. Therefore W was elected pure and simple.

Why is it the far left has issues with understanding legal concepts? :eek:

[dissention]

When the USSC decides something it is the law. Therefore W was elected pure and simple.

Yup. Even if the people of a democratic country elect Al Gore, the USSC makes the final decision and did. We were given a president we did not elect.

[gldstwmn]

Well, let's see, like 15 years ago James R, Bath gave W. $50,000 to help launch W's oil company called Arbusto. Mr. Bath served in the Texas NG with W and is a friend of the Bushes who served as a financial advisor to a brother of OBL. He is a shadey character. Although many believe there are other connections and that the BL had other investments in this oil company, there are not as provable. But, even if they are, that was a long time ago - June 1977 to be exact :shrug: And - if all they can come up with is a $50,000 investment 15 years ago, I am not buying that :laugh: $50,000 is a drop in the bucket when we are talking about oil money.

There are photocopies of letters of intent, checks and wires. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Yup. Even if the people of a democratic country elect Al Gore, the USSC makes the final decision and did. We were given a president we did not elect.

Once again with the legal principles, read the U.S. Const. The poplular vote has never elected any President :rolleyes: BTW - the people of Florida elected W. Prove me wrong.

[dissention]

Well, it does, but I also said it lessens the credibility of Hannity, Rhodes, etc. So, I am unsure how that supports you original statements.

Again, I think this movie is well made propoganda. It is not a fair and balanced look. It was never meant to be. Yet, people tout it as if it is. I am commenting on that. I applaud MM for making this film. I just wish he had shown both sides a little more. I think not doing that negates the credibility of what he is saying as does the use on the Bonanza music, the ice cream truck, etc. But, I still think it is a good film.

You've totally lost me AND your arguments.

You went from faulting him for his gimmick, to saying you're not faulting him for his gimmick, back to faulting him for his gimmick.

I'm done with this line of debate, you aren't making sense.

As for people touting it as fair and balanced, put down the crackpipe. :laugh: No one has ever said that. The most we've said is that it's factual, which it is.

[strandinthewind]

There are photocopies of letters of intent, checks and wires. :shrug:

From Bath. If there are any of these items from others, lets see them.

[gldstwmn]

Gee, Jason, did you forget Osama's brother Salem was partners with Georgie boy? Salem invested money when Arbuston was launched in 1977. It's not like Bath went around the community with hat in hand. He got the money from Osama's own brother.

What exactly did you like about the movie again?

Salem died mysteriously in 1988, by the way.

Right outside of Crawford Texas. :nod:

[dissention]

Once again with the legal principles, read the U.S. Const. The poplular vote has never elected any President :rolleyes: BTW - the people of Florida elected W. Prove me wrong.

No thanks, Mrs. Harris. I'm a bit tired of that discussion.

[strandinthewind]

You've totally lost me AND your arguments.

You went from faulting him for his gimmick, to saying you're not faulting him for his gimmick, back to faulting him for his gimmick.

I'm done with this line of debate, you aren't making sense.

As for people touting it as fair and balanced, put down the crackpipe. :laugh: No one has ever said that. The most we've said is that it's factual, which it is.


Bless your heart, I am saying MM's film wsa good and he was very effective in it. If I am faulting him for anything it is the film is too one sided to be touted as factual in general. But, that was his goal and he reached it by employing the same histrionics most employ. Thus, no fault can be attached. He meant to use these tactics. So, he and the film are without falut. Were I do find fault is with people that procliam the movie is the only version of events and facts. That is wrong. The movie is a one sided version.

better!

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=dissention].................so he has to over-analyze every frame of it so as not to get flamed by the two conservatives around here......


Make that three...........although technically I'm a lurker Ledgie and not an active poster anymore. I stopped posting sometime ago after the realization that this board has become increasingly intolerate to opposing views and seeing how anyone expressing an opinion outside of the far left is ridiculed. I was a diehard Rush Limbaugh hating tree hugging liberal Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 when I first joined this board. I even got flamed on this very site once for making a Republican joke. I have been liberal all of my adult life until the morning of September 11, 2001, after watching the second tower fall, I stunned myself when I realized all I could think is Thank God Bush is President. The change wasn't immediate but it was enough to make me to look deeper into my opinions and values. Two and a half years later I'm now a Hannity & O'Reilly loving One Nation Under God Go NRA Bush for President conservative. I don't agree with everything Bush does, I do not like Dick Cheney, I still don't care for Limbaugh and I think Ann Coulter needs to take a pill (or get laid, no offense ladies).

I began to feel unwelcomed here after my political views changed, even though I steered clear of the political debates, so I slipped into lurker status. I never realized how intolerate people on this board can be until I stepped over to the "wrong" side of the fence. Now I just check in occasionally to see what's up with the band but it even spills over into the FM forums. You can't even read a thread without being bombarded with Vote For John Kerry and Anti Bush signatures. I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have those signatures because I believe in free speech but I'd hate to see the backlash if I had a Vote For George W. Bush and anti Democrat signature because free speech only applys around here if you share the majority's opinion. It would be more ugly than I could dare to imagine. I would never have even saw this thread if a misplaced thread in the Rumours forum had not lead me here out of curiosity over what was being said about the Moore film.

Well I've said too much already and I'm sure the liberals are foaming at the mouth and ready to pounce on the lone conservative. And no I have not seen the Moore film. I would really like to see it but I didn't even like Moore when I was a liberal. He will make millions but not one cent from me.

I guess to point of my post is that friendly debate is one thing and everybody has different opinions but the level of intolerance for opposing views on this board is outrageous and not just in political threads. I'm sure I'm not the only Ledgie who has chosen lurker status or completely left the board because they feel unwelcome because they do not agree with the majority on certain issues whether it be political, moral or the Mac themselves. I think it's very sad how bipolarized we've become and our own Ledge is an example.

I hate to tell you this but our government did 9/11. At the very least, they allowed it.

[strandinthewind]

No thanks, Mrs. Harris. I'm a bit tired of that discussion.
Called for and could not come :laugh:

Again, please show me one recount from a credible news source that indicates Gore won and I will gladly eat crow. Until then, you lose this one as well. :p :xoxo: :wavey: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I hate to tell you this but our government did 9/11. At the very least, they allowed it.

Prove it. If you think for one minute people are going to believe that W met up with OBL and planned the attacks of 9/11 and thousands of officials around the world from Clinton downward are playing ball with W and not letting the cat out of the bag . . . then I do not know what to say.

IMO the more logical argument is the American govt., including the prior administration, was caught with its pants down. The govt. should have done more to stop this. That they did not is sad.

But to imply W did 9/11 is just a farce to me.

[dissention]

Bless your heart, I am saying MM's film wsa good and he was very effective in it. If I am faulting him for anything it is the film is too one sided to be touted as factual in general. But, that was his goal and he reached it by employing the same histrionics most employ. Thus, no fault can be attached. He meant to use these tactics. So, he and the film are without falut. Were I do find fault is with people that procliam the movie is the only version of events and facts. That is wrong. The movie is a one sided version.

better!

I posted that you said Moore's appraoch lent him less credibility. Your response?

"Well, it does."

What am I not getting? You're faulting him for his approach, plain and simple. Why won't you admit it? And since when can a one-sided argument supported by facts be considered not factual?

[dissention]

Prove it.

Wait until the 9/11 report comes out saying that 9/11 could've been prevented. But you won't admit that, either. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

I posted that you said Moore's appraoch lent him less credibility. Your response?

"Well, it does."

What am I not getting? You're faulting him for his approach, plain and simple. Why won't you admit it? And since when can a one-sided argument supported by facts be considered not factual?

I guess I do not see that as a fault since it was his objective. But, yes, I think it makes anything less credible when the presenter uses one sided approaches when presenting the facts. Again, he admits he wanted to do that. That was his objective. I do not fault him for it. If I did, I recant.

[gldstwmn]

Well, he refuses to do it. But I already characterized his actions quite aptly in another post...

No, we got some Republican talking points meme about Democrats and Iraq instead. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

Wait until the 9/11 report comes out saying that 9/11 could've been prevented. But you won't admit that, either. :rolleyes:

Yes I can, but it has not been proven to my eyes. Nothing suggested we were going to be attacked like we were at that time. I know the 8/01 doc says we were going to be attacked, but it was hardly specific.

I think the animosity between the agencies (which has been there forever) was far more of an obstacle.

In the end and given how the govt. works, I think it would have taken a lucky break to tie it al together. That did not happen. I also think the buck stops with W and he is to blame for the interagency aquabbling that prevented the lucky break even more. But, to say W knew we were going to be attacked on 9/11 and did nothing about it simply cannot be supported by any facts I have seen.

[gldstwmn]

Tone - I know Dissention, Carne, Goldie and I (and a few others) growl and bark at each other. But, I think it is important to realize we are all friends and like each other despite our misgivings politically!!!!!!! I guess that tone does not really come across too often. So, here is the post where it does!!!!! :woohoo:

Truth. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

you just need to read her post several times to understand where she is coming from and then accept her position, her intellect and not judge it as ignorance which needs to be corrected, that's all

Well, I did. I see fear, lots of fear. BTW, part of having a debate is to present an opposing viewpoint. Sitting back and digesting everything we are told has been happening for way too long in this country. I, for one, won't do it.

[dissention]

Yes I can, but it has not been proven to my eyes. Nothing suggested we were going to be attacked like we were at that time. I know the 8/01 doc says we were going to be attacked, but it was hardly specific.

Yeah, because the American people have the same information the panel has. :rolleyes: We still don't even know what Bush and Cheney said in their interrogations, although it's been rumoured to have been almost all about the HUGE f*ck-up that was Cheney's shoot-down order.

[estranged4life]

Called for and could not come :laugh:

Again, please show me one recount from a credible news source that indicates Gore won and I will gladly eat crow. Until then, you lose this one as well. :p :xoxo: :wavey: :wavey:

about that ol' Gore vs Bush fiasco can be found with the following title:

"36 Days-The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis

Written by the Correspondents of the New York Times"

[gldstwmn]

thanks for the convo everyone!!!! gotta a bus to catch!!! Feel free to flame!! Nite

Yeah. Did you actually have a point to make? :confused:

[gldstwmn]

I know that and said it before. Again, stop the spin :cool: .

Dude, you're spinning like a broken washing machine right now. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Interestingly, should we have investigated all Saudi nationals that left soon after 9/11.

No just the immediate family members would have been fine by me.

[dissention]

Dude, you're spinning like a broken washing machine right now. :laugh:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Explain what you mean?

I felt that Mrs. Lipscomb was proud of her children's service. She most certainly was not ashamed of them. She was ashamed of a government that sent them to war on a lie.

[gldstwmn]

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My point was that The Ledge in general has seemed like an unwelcoming climate for opposing views, which in my case happen to be conservative. There is alot of intolerance and disrespect.

You are free to start your own threads. Speaking your conscience takes a lot of courage and thick skin.

[The Tower]

I will not put myself on the butcher block for you, CarneVaca or anyone else. It wasn't the point of my original post anyway.

Smart girl.

Although, if you feel strongly about your convinctions, you should be able to withstand any onlslaught from anyone.

[gldstwmn]

From Bath. If there are any of these items from others, lets see them.

Bath was their money man. Who else is there?

[dissention]

You are free to start your own threads. Speaking your conscience takes a lot of courage and thick skin.

We should be titled the Teflon Ledgies. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

No thanks, Mrs. Harris. I'm a bit tired of that discussion.

Yah. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

Although, if you feel strongly about your convinctions, you should be able to withstand any onlslaught from anyone.

AMEN. I couldn't have said it any better. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Prove it. .

I've posted a lot of things. If you are interested in this opinion, then you are going to have to do your own research. There isn't enough bandwidth for me to post all of the things.

[estranged4life]

Dude, you're spinning like a broken washing machine right now. :laugh:

being a Fleetwood Mac related site I believe spinning like Stevie during "Stand Back" live is a better description than a washing machine!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

being a Fleetwood Mac related site I believe spinning like Stevie during "Stand Back" live is a better description than a washing machine!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gwillaker]

In my opinion, hate is over-rated. Most people you hate dont know you hate them, and the rest dont give a ****. And it just makes you feel bad, so I dont see the benefit really :cool:

[strandinthewind]

No just the immediate family members would have been fine by me.

all 800 + of them :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I felt that Mrs. Lipscomb was proud of her children's service. She most certainly was not ashamed of them. She was ashamed of a government that sent them to war on a lie.

I know that. What I referred to was there are parents, wives, spouses, significant others ( :shocked: ) that not only are proud of their injured or deceased person's service, but also believe in the war in Iraq. Yet, MM consciously chose not to show that point of view :shrug: If he had, it would have lessened his point he was trying to make. That takes away from the point IMO. That is why I conclude this is propoganda as opposed to news. Again, he readily admits it is not news - so how am I wrong or taking anything away from his concept of his work?

[strandinthewind]

Bath was their money man. Who else is there?

Ohter than Bath - no one the media can find - and believe me they have looked as did I am sure MM. but all Bath gave was $50,000 which is nothing to the Bushes and certainly nothing to the BL's.

[Bella Figura]

Well, I did. I see fear, lots of fear. BTW, part of having a debate is to present an opposing viewpoint. Sitting back and digesting everything we are told has been happening for way too long in this country. I, for one, won't do it. hey, I finally figured this out!!!!

I'm back...fear can be a great motivator but Wild Heart has not definitively (sp error) said this why she is a conservative but if that is the reason, so be it. Biologically, controlled Fear can lead people to do great things and ultimate survival...and our country and democracy itself is struggling for survival.

Dissention: Wild Heart made the Ann Coulter comment with her first post. a reread may be in order. I had to leave work but I did sign back on this evening at home as to not be accused of the "hit and run" post :lol:

[Wild Heart]

Smart girl.

Although, if you feel strongly about your convinctions, you should be able to withstand any onlslaught from anyone.

I'm beginning to see why there are so many disagreements and misunderstandings here. You hear only what you want to hear. You totally missed the whole point of my posts. It's not about whether or not I can withstand any onslaught, have a thick or thin skin or if my opinions are based on fear. I can take as well as dish with the best of them but I'm not going there on this board, especially about my views on Bush. It's not that I'm afraid to defend myself. I shouldn't have to defend myself. It's my opinion and you should respect it. I also said several times I did not want to discuss my reasons for supporting Bush and you should respect that as well but instead you keep provoking me hoping to start an arguement. Alot of you don't like Bush and I respect it. The point is there's no need to attack anyone who does not share the same political views (or any other view) as you do and make them feel like they're ignorant and without value.

I'm sorry if I stirred something up here but I guess I've had enough of the crappy and disrespectful way people everywhere treat each other these days. People are no longer nice because it's the right way to treat people. And I'm sick of the bipolarization because of all the political nastiness in this country.

I also miss participating in threads here. There were several people here whose threads I always enjoyed but most of them seemed to be gone now. It makes me wonder about the reasons they left. This seems like such a hostile environment now.

As for those of you who think my opinions are fear based, that very well maybe true. I do fear for the safety of my friends and family and you should too. Whether you believe this administration or not, you cannot deny that there are people out there who want to kill you, me and our families and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. I do fear that there will be another attack on US soil before November to help sway the election just like in Spain.

I will leave you with something my mom has always told me - "Just because you can doesn't mean you should". Everyone on this God forsaken planet should stop and think about that phrase once in a while.

[Bella Figura]

Yeah. Did you actually have a point to make? :confused: no, not really, except to express my own opinions. but I'm not making a point for anyone, I believe that people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about the status of liberalism in this country today...

but here's one of my points: I've have been watching and listening on NPR to the 9/11 commision hearings as best I can and Rudy said it best. Every agency can learn from mistakes that happened that day but the responsibility for those attacks are on OBL conscience, he is the buck stops here guy, IT IS HIS FAULT...hopefully with this election, we can get back to our true business which is to stop this guy and his ilk...and when a candidate comes out strongly that this is his/her #1 priority, then they will get my vote...

[GypsySorcerer]

I shouldn't have to defend myself. It's my opinion and you should respect it.


I agree with you. All of what we post in the political discussions are opinions. In fact, all of politics is opinion. (in my opinion ;) ) Al-Qaeda members flew two airplanes in the WTC. That's a fact. What we could have done to prevent it, whose fault it is, whether it could have been prevented, are all opinions. They cannot be proven. I do not think MM's documentary is fact. Not because I believe everything in there is a lie, but because anyone can twist anything to make his/her point. I also believe there are always two sides to every story. So whose side is "right?" Neither. It's a matter of opinion. Democrats and Republicans simply have differing opinions; neither side is right.

I try not to say anyone's thoughts are wrong or incorrect in these politcial discussions. I am respectful toward viewpoints different from my own; I may disagree with them vehemently, but that doesn't make them wrong. I have seen/read several things in these threads that made my blood boil, but I usually do not respond because everyone has the right to his/her opinion. Maybe I should jump in there more often. If I did, I'd hope that my thoughts would be taken seriously and with respect. I'm sure I've offended others too with my remarks. I hope that I have not come across malicious to anyone.

I like and respect all that join in the political discussions. Hopefully, we can debate in the future without anyone feeling belittled for his/her ideas. :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

Yowsa... this is a doozy of a thread. I didn't see it when it was first posted, and now it's damn-near impossible to read every post from all 13 pages.

Anyway, people can say all they want about "liberals"... but I'm still proud to be called a liberal.
Social issues are what I care most about. Taxes, social security... that stuff takes a backseat.

I do not wish to see this country "whitewashed" by social conservatism and religious zealots.
Folks get up-in-arms about the Muslims and their extreme religious views, and yet completely overlook the very extreme religious views that are overtaking OUR country. Masked as "patriotism."

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face... no one... not even the leader of MY country... has the right to tell ME what I'm supposed to believe or who I'M allowed to marry.
And as biased as it may sound, I still firmly believe that a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for intolerance and prejudice.

If someone wants an extreme conservative in the White House, I can't stop them from voting for him, and I most likely can't change their minds.
All I can hope is that someday they'll wake up and see that life isn't all about who's going to raise or lower your taxes.

Johnny "Proud To Be A Bleeding Heart Liberal" Stew

[strandinthewind]

All I can hope is that someday they'll wake up and see that life isn't all about who's going to raise or lower your taxes.

Foul!!!!!!

Both R's and D's passed the initial tax cuts. So, do not lay all that on W and the R's - but I admit, they put the bill forward :cool: Actually, at the time, it was okay to most because we were not at war and we allegedly had a huge surplus!! Not any more though.

In any event, and I am sure Dissention will chime in with the sky is falling logic Dissention loves :laugh: :wavey: - a significant number of economist inlcuding Alan Greenspan, the tax cuts have helped the economy on the road to recovery. Now, if we could jest temper W's Democratesq spending and avoid the already mounting deficit from getting larger, we may be alright :nod: But, W spends with no end in sight and we will watch our economy decline :cool:

[Sugar]

Oh come on! This is a political debate thread! Started with a very deliberate and inflammatory piece called "Why I Hate Liberals"! If you enter into it, people involved in it are going to assume you're entering the debate. If you want to state your opinions without the bother of defending them, start the "This is my opinion, don't anyone challange me" thread.

I think this is a case of just what side of the coin you're on. I remember some very viscious rhetoric going around by the conservatives (not on this board) when Clinton was in office. Godie, Carne, and dissention, as well as Strand are all very passionate as well as very well informed. They also have an established rapport, something they have all taken the time to inform everyone of.

Does some of it get a little heated for me? Sure. Do I think things get a little ridiculous sometimes? Sure. Do I feel a little outmatched? Definitely!
But I rarely see any of them get outright mean. I mean, I think it's a little much to compare Bush to Hitler, but they can if they want. Why? Not because I can defend my position, but because I'm comfortable with my position.

Again, if you don't want to debate, then don't enter the debate!

[Sugar]

As for those of you who think my opinions are fear based, that very well maybe true. I do fear for the safety of my friends and family and you should too. Whether you believe this administration or not, you cannot deny that there are people out there who want to kill you, me and our families and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. I do fear that there will be another attack on US soil before November to help sway the election just like in Spain.

I will leave you with something my mom has always told me - "Just because you can doesn't mean you should". Everyone on this God forsaken planet should stop and think about that phrase once in a while.

I found these two paragraphs to be the most interesting. These are fears everyone has, and if people oppose Bush it's not because they don't think our lives are in danger from terrorists. It's because they think he's missing the target. Sure he's acting, but is he taking the right actions? Or are his actions making things worse? I only address this because you make it sound like people who want Bush out don't believe we are in danger. That is not true. Not by a long shot.

And I'll just say the first thing I thought of when I read your last paragraph was how we invaded Iraq. Your mom is absolutely right.

[gldstwmn]

I know that. What I referred to was there are parents, wives, spouses, significant others ( :shocked: ) that not only are proud of their injured or deceased person's service, but also believe in the war in Iraq. Yet, MM consciously chose not to show that point of view :shrug: If he had, it would have lessened his point he was trying to make. That takes away from the point IMO. That is why I conclude this is propoganda as opposed to news. Again, he readily admits it is not news - so how am I wrong or taking anything away from his concept of his work?

It's his point of view. Make your own movie if you don't like it. :) :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I found these two paragraphs to be the most interesting. These are fears everyone has, and if people oppose Bush it's not because they don't think our lives are in danger from terrorists. It's because they think he's missing the target. Sure he's acting, but is he taking the right actions? Or are his actions making things worse? I only address this because you make it sound like people who want Bush out don't believe we are in danger. That is not true. Not by a long shot.

And I'll just say the first thing I thought of when I read your last paragraph was how we invaded Iraq. Your mom is absolutely right.

I agree. I think W's actions have been to placate Americans. He has not captured OBL, the guy who did 9/11. His stragegy to make Iraq beacon of American aptitude nad Democracy in the Middle East may work, but the odds are heavily stacked against it srring its fruition. I for one hope it works. I think it would be great if it did. But, I am scared it canot overcome the odds against it. In any event, i have not agreed with W's polices and theories. But, I will give him A for effort. At least he did something even if I disagree with it :cool:

[strandinthewind]

It's his point of view. Make your own movie if you don't like it. :) :xoxo:

I agree and that is what I was saying :cool: That is why it is not really my place to fault him in his propoganda :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Foul!!!!!!

Both R's and D's passed the initial tax cuts. So, do not lay all that on W and the R's - but I admit, they put the bill forward

Uhm... Jason... there's nothing to cry foul about.
I wasn't saying WHO does, or doesn't, raise or lower taxes... I just said that I hope someday people will see that taxes are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to why we should (or shouldn't) vote for a politician.

[gldstwmn]

Oh come on! This is a political debate thread! Started with a very deliberate and inflammatory piece called "Why I Hate Liberals"! If you enter into it, people involved in it are going to assume you're entering the debate. If you want to state your opinions without the bother of defending them, start the "This is my opinion, don't anyone challange me" thread.



Thank you! :woohoo: That 's what happens in a dictatorship and not the United States Of America, land of the free, home of the brave. Sorry, I got carried away with the last part.

BTW, there is no factual information contained in that hit piece in the begining of this thread.
Hate is indeed an ugly thing. Some of you might find this hard to believe but I don't even "hate" President Bush. The tone of that first post is, well, hateful. And for what? People who honestly care enough about their views of where this country is headed and aren't afraid to say something about it?

'LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[strandinthewind]

Uhm... Jason... there's nothing to cry foul about.
I wasn't saying WHO does, or doesn't, raise or lower taxes... I just said that I hope someday people will see that taxes are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to why we should (or shouldn't) vote for a politician.

You said:
______________________________________________________________
If someone wants an extreme conservative in the White House, I can't stop them from voting for him, and I most likely can't change their minds.
All I can hope is that someday they'll wake up and see that life isn't all about who's going to raise or lower your taxes.

Johnny "Proud To Be A Bleeding Heart Liberal" Stew
______________________________________________________________

I took that to mean the R's are the ones who want to lower taxes because they are the ones the far left labels extreme conservative like i submit W is. I did not know you included D's in the category of "extreme conservative" --- but what do I know :laugh: In any even and whatever you meant, they both voted for it so they both fit in the definition :shrug: :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

He has not captured OBL.

By the way... I think that says it all, for those who feel that Bush has done something wonderful for our country since 9/11.

The man who orchestrated the attacks that killed nearly three thousand people on American soil, is STILL free, while the president you support has been focusing his attentions elsewhere.

[sparky]

I found these two paragraphs to be the most interesting. These are fears everyone has, and if people oppose Bush it's not because they don't think our lives are in danger from terrorists.


Hmmm...other than for about 2 days after 9/11, I have NEVER had a shred of fear about terrorism. I don't think there will be another attack on our soil any time soon. For crying out loud, it's been almost three years, and nothing has happened over here. It isn't like anyone needed a PhD to carry out the earlier attacks. A trained monkey could put anthrax in our water supply. Hasn't happened.

I refuse to live my life ruled by fear. I don't we should be governed by it either. Other than seat belts, health insurance and condoms, few of my decisions are fear based. Even those aren't fear based. Common sense is more my rule. Sense, yeah. Fear ? Nope.

[Johnny Stew]

You said:
______________________________________________________________
If someone wants an extreme conservative in the White House, I can't stop them from voting for him, and I most likely can't change their minds.
All I can hope is that someday they'll wake up and see that life isn't all about who's going to raise or lower your taxes.

Johnny "Proud To Be A Bleeding Heart Liberal" Stew
______________________________________________________________

I took that to mean the R's are the ones who want to lower taxes because they are the ones the far left labels extreme conservative like i submit W is. I did not know you included D's in the category of "extreme conservative" --- but what do I know :laugh: In any even and whatever you meant, they both voted for it so they both fit in the definition :shrug: :wavey:

No, no, no, Jason... the point I'm trying to make, is that I don't care which of the parties raises or lowers taxes.
I'm trying to say that there are more important issues than taxes.

The "extreme conservative" comment was meant completely in regards to social issues... and it's the social issues that I think are the most important and pressing.

[strandinthewind]

By the way... I think that says it all, for those who feel that Bush has done something wonderful for our country since 9/11.

The man who orchestrated the attacks that killed nearly three thousand people on American soil, is STILL free, while the president you support has been focusing his attentions elsewhere.

But the point is could Kerry or anyone for that matter have done better. I mean if you want to get right down to it, Clinton had more than one opportunity but did not get him and he had attacked America more than once by then. If people think Kerry can do it better, then he deserves to win on that basis. But, nothing he has espoused suggests he could have :shrug: I guess Kerry could say we should not have gone to Iraq and removed SH and instead concentrated on finding OBL, but that would be a little hard for him to argue since he voted to bomb SH in 1998, expressed continuous rhetoric about the need to remove the grave danger imposed by SH, and voted to give W a free hand in removing him. Plus, the D platform agrees that SH was a threat. I think Kerry will have trouble arguing his way out of this one. But, he really only has to sell the wiggle to a relatively few number of people in about four states :shrug: So who knows. I think the better argument is W has done what he thought was right but it has not worked and here is what Kerry can do that is better. We have yet to hear it like that.

[gldstwmn]

As for those of you who think my opinions are fear based, that very well maybe true. I do fear for the safety of my friends and family and you should too. Whether you believe this administration or not, you cannot deny that there are people out there who want to kill you, me and our families and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. I do fear that there will be another attack on US soil before November to help sway the election just like in Spain.



WHERE IS BIN LADEN AND WHY DOES OUR PRESIDENT SAY HE "DOESN'T CARE" WHERE HE IS?

[strandinthewind]

No, no, no, Jason... the point I'm trying to make, is that I don't care which of the parties raises or lowers taxes.
I'm trying to say that there are more important issues than taxes.

The "extreme conservative" comment was meant completely in regards to social issues... and it's the social issues that I think are the most important and pressing.

Touche' Touche' :xoxo:

[Sugar]

I agree. I think W's actions have been to placate Americans. He has not captured OBL, the guy who did 9/11. His stragegy to make Iraq beacon of American aptitude nad Democracy in the Middle East may work, but the odds are heavily stacked against it srring its fruition. I for one hope it works. I think it would be great if it did. But, I am scared it canot overcome the odds against it. In any event, i have not agreed with W's polices and theories. But, I will give him A for effort. At least he did something even if I disagree with it :cool:

Oh, I think he wanted to get into Iraq for his own reasons, and I remember thinking that right after the election, before 9/11. But yes, I think Afganistan was botched and he thought Iraq would be a nice little noch in his belt that he could show off to the American people.

You're very kind to give Dubya an A for effort. I don't. This is the foreign policy of the President of the United States, not a video game. Hell, I could have forgiven the "personal stake" if he had done things well, but by all accounts the invasion of Iraq (or more concisely, the occupation) was poorly planned, the resistance underestimated, and the challenges not taken seriously. I remember being infuriated by his glib, "Wanted dead or alive" and "Smoke 'em out" comments, and that goes for Rumsfeld too. Moore nailed that; they all acted like characters in a western! Can you imagine FDR saying things like that during WWII? It's not just the decision that bothers me, it's the execution.

[dissention]

In any event, and I am sure Dissention will chime in with the sky is falling logic Dissention loves :laugh: :wavey: - a significant number of economist inlcuding Alan Greenspan, the tax cuts have helped the economy on the road to recovery. Now, if we could jest temper W's Democratesq spending and avoid the already mounting deficit from getting larger, we may be alright :nod: But, W spends with no end in sight and we will watch our economy decline :cool:

You're really something to behold. :laugh:

As I've said hundreds of tiems beofre, tax cuts are band-aids, not solutions, and they are very temporary.

[strandinthewind]

WHERE IS BIN LADEN AND WHY DOES OUR PRESIDENT SAY HE "DOESN'T CARE" WHERE HE IS?

Because there are many more terrorist organization on the planet. And - OBL was made somethat irrelevant when Al-Q lost its protected base of operations in Afganistan. I know no self-respecting far left winger will ever admit it, but the busting up of the Taliban and the capture or killing of many Al-Q top officials significantly weakened Al-Q. How could it not :shrug: But and in the end, capturing OBL should have been a goal - I think it was, but it was not met.

[dissention]

Oh come on! This is a political debate thread! Started with a very deliberate and inflammatory piece called "Why I Hate Liberals"! If you enter into it, people involved in it are going to assume you're entering the debate. If you want to state your opinions without the bother of defending them, start the "This is my opinion, don't anyone challange me" thread.

I think this is a case of just what side of the coin you're on. I remember some very viscious rhetoric going around by the conservatives (not on this board) when Clinton was in office. Godie, Carne, and dissention, as well as Strand are all very passionate as well as very well informed. They also have an established rapport, something they have all taken the time to inform everyone of.

Does some of it get a little heated for me? Sure. Do I think things get a little ridiculous sometimes? Sure. Do I feel a little outmatched? Definitely!
But I rarely see any of them get outright mean. I mean, I think it's a little much to compare Bush to Hitler, but they can if they want. Why? Not because I can defend my position, but because I'm comfortable with my position.

Again, if you don't want to debate, then don't enter the debate!

Amen, Sugar.

It's just like with Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, or even Sean Hannity, if you don't like what you're hearing on the radio, shut the goddamn thing off. :laugh:

If you don't like what the political threads contain, don't open them. Chances are they're going to contain the very things you dislike.

[Johnny Stew]

But the point is could Kerry or anyone for that matter have done better.

I don't have a crystal ball to answer that question, though my belief is that anyone could have handled the situation as well as Bush did... and I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a number of people who would have handled it far better than Bush did.

Bush isn't the only president who can protect this country... though the propaganda-machine would sure like us to think that he is.

I love this country, and this country deserves far better than George W. Bush as its leader.

[dissention]

I agree. I think W's actions have been to placate Americans. He has not captured OBL, the guy who did 9/11. His stragegy to make Iraq beacon of American aptitude nad Democracy in the Middle East may work, but the odds are heavily stacked against it srring its fruition. I for one hope it works. I think it would be great if it did. But, I am scared it canot overcome the odds against it. In any event, i have not agreed with W's polices and theories. But, I will give him A for effort. At least he did something even if I disagree with it :cool:

It definitely won't happen when the Shiite's shack up with the Iranian's. Stay tuned. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Because there are many more terrorist organization on the planet. And - OBL was made somethat irrelevant when Al-Q lost its protected base of operations in Afganistan. I know no self-respecting far left winger will ever admit it, but the busting up of the Taliban and the capture or killing of many Al-Q top officials significantly weakened Al-Q. How could it not :shrug: But and in the end, capturing OBL should have been a goal - I think it was, but it was not met.

Jason, for the love of God, could you please, for once let the person to whom the question was asked respond instead of making their case for them? I'm interested in their response as you and I have gone round and round on this merry go round for a long time now.
Thank you. :)

[gldstwmn]

It definitely won't happen when the Shiite's shack up with the Iranian's. Stay tuned. ;)

Don't hold your breath waiting for the trial of Saddam either.

[CarneVaca]

I do fear that there will be another attack on US soil before November to help sway the election just like in Spain.

With all due respect, saying the March 11 attacks in Madrid swayed the election in Spain tends to ignore the political reality of that fine nation. Ninety percent of the voters in Spain opposed that country's participation in the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. The prime minister ignored the voters' wishes and glued his lips to Dubya's butt regardless.

By the time the attacks took place on March 11, even though the party that was in power had been in a neck and neck race with the Socialists, the Socialists had just pulled ahead in the polls by a few points. When the attacks happened, the party in power, headed by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was in real trouble. Not because the good people of Spain were caving in to the terrorists. And here is the nuance that the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Dubyas of the world -- who probably couldn't find Spain on a map even if it were labeled in bold red letters -- missed:

Aznar and his cronies immediately started blaming the attacks on the Basque separatist movement, the ETA. Yet, the evidence was pointing elsewhere. The ETA always took care to blow things up where it would have minimal impact on human lives. IN fact, when the ETA made a mistake and blew up a few people a few years back, they apologized for it. Now, I'm not even in Spain, but as soon as I read about the bombings I thought: This was not the work of the ETA. This has al Qaida written all over it.

By the time the election took place in Spain, only a few days after the attacks, it had become quite evident that Aznar and his cronies had been lying to the Spanish public and that, indeed, ETA had nothing to do with the attacks. That's why his party was booted. And by the way, Aznar, who had aspirations for a top position in the EU, is now a has-been.

Here's the difference between Spain and the US: When the leaders of Spain lie to the public, they get booted out. Here, they get reelected. Witness Clinton in 1996. And, I fear, the same will happen this year.

So before you go around spewing about Spain, you might want to take a moment to try to understand the political situation over there.

[strandinthewind]

It's not just the decision that bothers me, it's the execution.


Exactly - that is what I was saying. People seem to think W just up and said one day, "Let's go to Iraq" - that decision had been brewing since Clinton bombed them in 1998. Kerry and Clinton and the UN still think Sh was a grave threat and he needed to comply with the UN or be removed. But, W gets the blame because he actually did it. I think Clinton and Kerry are correct when they say after 9/11 we could not longer afford to take the risk that SH had any WMD and he was in material breach of his obligation since 1991 or so to prove he did not have them. Yet, W gets all the blame for doing what others had not the stomach to do :shrug:

I am pissed because once the world did not accept our inital reasons for the invasion W lied about the exigency of the threat by lying about the yellow cake from Niger and his admin. grossly underestimated the task. For that, he should not be elected again.

[strandinthewind]

You're really something to behold. :laugh:

As I've said hundreds of tiems beofre, tax cuts are band-aids, not solutions, and they are very temporary.

I agree with you, they are catalysts. But, if we raise taxes now, what will happen? The economists are uncertain. What we need to do is stop spending money.

[dissention]

By the way... I think that says it all, for those who feel that Bush has done something wonderful for our country since 9/11.

Wow, Johnny. You said it all, and very eloquently, might I say.

Everyone needs to take a step back and look at this objectively: what has Bush and his administration really done since 9/11, and what have they really done to make us safer? Have the Sherwin Williams paint charts made us any safer? Has the Department of Homeland Security been any help? Have we gotten bin Laden? Have we dealt with North Korea? Were there ANY weapons found in Iraq?

The answer to all those questions is a resounding no.

[CarneVaca]

Uhm... Jason... there's nothing to cry foul about.
I wasn't saying WHO does, or doesn't, raise or lower taxes... I just said that I hope someday people will see that taxes are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to why we should (or shouldn't) vote for a politician.

Next time Jason cries "Foul!" let's all just give him a huge cyber kick in the butt.

[dissention]

Because there are many more terrorist organization on the planet. And - OBL was made somethat irrelevant when Al-Q lost its protected base of operations in Afganistan. I know no self-respecting far left winger will ever admit it, but the busting up of the Taliban and the capture or killing of many Al-Q top officials significantly weakened Al-Q. How could it not :shrug: But and in the end, capturing OBL should have been a goal - I think it was, but it was not met.

Hmmm...that must be why al-Qaeda boasts 800,000 members and why it's now stronger than it was before 9/11...

[strandinthewind]

Jason, for the love of God, could you please, for once let the person to whom the question was asked respond instead of making their case for them? I'm interested in their response as you and I have gone round and round on this merry go round for a long time now.
Thank you. :)

Well EEXXCCCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSEEE MMEEEE

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:sorry:

[gldstwmn]

And, I fear, the same will happen this year.



What's to fear? Things can only get better once we dump W.

[dissention]

and I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a number of people who would have handled it far better than Bush did.

Al Gore comes to mind.

Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind.

Chelsea Clinton comes to mind.

Mr. Ed comes to mind.

[CarneVaca]

Hmmm...other than for about 2 days after 9/11, I have NEVER had a shred of fear about terrorism. I don't think there will be another attack on our soil any time soon. For crying out loud, it's been almost three years, and nothing has happened over here. It isn't like anyone needed a PhD to carry out the earlier attacks. A trained monkey could put anthrax in our water supply. Hasn't happened.

I refuse to live my life ruled by fear. I don't we should be governed by it either. Other than seat belts, health insurance and condoms, few of my decisions are fear based. Even those aren't fear based. Common sense is more my rule. Sense, yeah. Fear ? Nope.

Hear, hear. I happen to agree. The terrorist threat is being as exaggerated by the fascists in Washington as much as the right-wing nuts of the 1980s overstated the weapons capabilities of the Soviet Union. Fear is their most valuable commodity.

[dissention]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the trial of Saddam either.

:laugh:

That'll happen the day OJ confesses.

[gldstwmn]

Al Gore comes to mind.

Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind.

Chelsea Clinton comes to mind.

Mr. Ed comes to mind.

Michael Jackson's chimp, Bubbles. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

Al Gore comes to mind.

Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind.

Chelsea Clinton comes to mind.

Mr. Ed comes to mind.

I dunno... did you see Bush in that flightsuit?
We either already have Mr. Ed in the White House, or that sucker was stuffed (I'm leaning towards the latter)! ;)

[gldstwmn]

:laugh:

That'll happen the day OJ confesses.

I honestly think that's what killed Robert Kardashian.

[strandinthewind]

Hmmm...that must be why al-Qaeda boasts 800,000 members and why it's now stronger than it was before 9/11...

So, taking away a sanctioned training ground and capturing or killing many of the top level leadreship and then freezing some of its money did nothing significant to disrupt it. I suggest to think it did not is to ignore reality. But, the far left will NEVER admit it disrupted Al-Q because to do so is to give W a tiny bit of credit. AND - anyone in the WH could have done the same thing. Like Bill Naher says "who hard was it to point at Afganistan on a map and say destroy this" :laugh: So, in theory W did not do anything anyone else would not have done. Yet, the far left remains unwilling to see the facts as they are :rolleyes:

[Johnny Stew]

What's to fear? Things can only get better once we dump W.

I keep telling myself, "it would only be four more years... it would only be four more years."

Somehow that's not enough to help me sleep at night though. :distress:

[dissention]

With all due respect, saying the March 11 attacks in Madrid swayed the election in Spain tends to ignore the political reality of that fine nation. Ninety percent of the voters in Spain opposed that country's participation in the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. The prime minister ignored the voters' wishes and glued his lips to Dubya's butt regardless.

Don't forget, though, that Dubya and his cronies practically blackmailed Spain into supporting them. They even sent CIA operatives to spy on the Spanish government before the Iraq invasion.

[strandinthewind]

Next time Jason cries "Foul!" let's all just give him a huge cyber kick in the butt.


:p :p :p :p

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

So, taking away a sanctioned training ground and capturing or killing many of the top level leadreship and then freezing some of its money did nothing significant to disrupt it. I suggest to think it did not is to ignore reality. But, the far left will NEVER admit it disrupted Al-Q because to do so is to give W a tiny bit of credit.

Oh, I'm convinced that we "disrupted" them... but we sure didn't stop them.
We just shook the hornet's nest and got them all nice and pissed off, and now they're even more determined to bring us down than ever before.

[dissention]

I dunno... did you see Bush in that flightsuit?
We either already have Mr. Ed in the White House, or that sucker was stuffed (I'm leaning towards the latter)! ;)

He looked so presidential in that flight suit and so masculine. :rolleyes:

To even come up with an exit strategy would threaten his manhood.

[dissention]

Michael Jackson's chimp, Bubbles. :shrug:

Michael Jackson's old nose, even. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

He looked so presidential in that flight suit and so masculine. :rolleyes:

I know... my little homo heart was all a-flutter. ;) :lol:

[dissention]

So, taking away a sanctioned training ground and capturing or killing many of the top level leadreship and then freezing some of its money did nothing significant to disrupt it. I suggest to think it did not is to ignore reality. But, the far left will NEVER admit it disrupted Al-Q because to do so is to give W a tiny bit of credit. AND - anyone in the WH could have done the same thing. Like Bill Naher says "who hard was it to point at Afganistan on a map and say destroy this" :laugh: So, in theory W did not do anything anyone else would not have done. Yet, the far left remains unwilling to see the facts as they are :rolleyes:

He gave al-Qaeda two months to evacuate before he went in there to plant poppy seeds!

[CarneVaca]

I know... my little homo heart was all a-flutter. ;) :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Dude, you actually made laugh out loud there.

[strandinthewind]

He looked so presidential in that flight suit and so masculine. :rolleyes:

To even come up with an exit strategy would threaten his manhood.

The flightsuit incident was one of Rove's mistakes. Even though I do not like him, i will admit he does not make many. I think he thought the country would be split as it is now and the vision of the flight suit therefore could not hurt W. I think W's base, which is 99.9 % od those voting for him still think that was a GREAT thing to do. Similarly, the 99.9% of the D base HATED W before that and that pic did not sway them one way or the other. I bet Rove is PISSED he cannot use that in the ads for the 04 race. Oh well, you live by the sword . . . .

[Johnny Stew]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Dude, you actually made laugh out loud there.

Score!!! :thumbsup:

[Sugar]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Dude, you actually made laugh out loud there.

Me too!

And I may never be able to see that footage without hearing the theme to "The Greatest American Hero" again...

[dissention]

I know... my little homo heart was all a-flutter. ;) :lol:

:shocked: :laugh: :lol:

I? Just blew snot all over my monitor.

:lol:

[strandinthewind]

He gave al-Qaeda two months to evacuate before he went in there to plant poppy seeds!

True, although W is not planting them. But Stay on target, what does that have to do with disproving my point that removing the Taliban and disrupting the Al-Q base of operations significantly weakened Al-Q.

[dissention]

The flightsuit incident was one of Rove's mistakes. Even though I do not like him, i will admit he does not make many. I think he thought the country would be split as it is now and the vision of the flight suit therefore could not hurt W. I think W's base, which is 99.9 % od those voting for him still think that was a GREAT thing to do. Similarly, the 99.9% of the D base HATED W before that and that pic did not sway them one way or the other. I bet Rove is PISSED he cannot use that in the ads for the 04 race. Oh well, you live by the sword . . . .

:shrug: He has used them in ads. :shrug:

They show him in the flight suit shaking hands.

[gldstwmn]

Oh, I'm convinced that we "disrupted" them... but we sure didn't stop them.
We just shook the hornet's nest and got them all nice and pissed off, and now they're even more determined to bring us down than ever before.

Now we're actually endorsing them by establishing diplomatic relations with a known terrorist- Qadaffi.

[strandinthewind]

:shrug: He has used them in ads. :shrug:

They show him in the flight suit shaking hands.

In national ads and recently. If so I have not seen them.


I know he tried to use them and the pics of the rented FF and cops :rolleyes: in a staged 9/11 seen and the public outcry in objection was thundering so we have not seen them since.

[dissention]

True, but Stay on target, what does that have to do with disproving my point that removing the Taliban and disrupting the Al-Q base of operations significantly weakened Al-Q.

Oh, he weakened them, but not at all to the extent that they, or you, would have people believe. If they had been weakened so badly after being given two months to evacuate and set up operations elsewhere, how in the hell were they able to recruit hundreds of thousands of new members and swell their membership to over 800,000? They're in Iraq as we speak, hiding outside of mosques and churches, recruiting young boys every day.

[dissention]

In national ads and recently. If so I have not seen them.


I know he tried to use them and the pics of the rented FF and cops :rolleyes: in a staged 9/11 seen and the public outcry in objection was thundering so we have not seen them since.

Those ads with the fake cops and firefighters were retired ages ago, but the one with the still photo of him in the flight suit is still playing. It's on MSNBC a lot.

[Johnny Stew]

They're in Iraq as we speak, hiding outside of mosques and churches, recruiting young boys every day.

There's a Michael Jackson joke in there somewhere, I just know there is. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Oh, I'm convinced that we "disrupted" them... but we sure didn't stop them.
We just shook the hornet's nest and got them all nice and pissed off, and now they're even more determined to bring us down than ever before.

Again, should we have offered OBL a touchy feely hug and then sent him to sensitivity training classes :rolleyes:

I cannot believe you all apparently think invading Afganistan and removing The "OBL could NEVER have done that and we have no clue where he is" Taliban :rolleyes:

Seriously, what else could we do but invade Afganistan. I am all ears . . . . :)

[dissention]

There's a Michael Jackson joke in there somewhere, I just know there is. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You're on fire tonight.

[gldstwmn]

Again, should we have offered OBL a touchy feely hug and then sent him to sensitivity training classes :rolleyes:



You mean like what we're doing with Qadaffi now?

[Johnny Stew]

:shocked: :laugh: :lol:

I? Just blew snot all over my monitor.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You're on fire tonight.


Thanks! I'm doing two shows per night, thru Thursday. ;)

[dissention]

Again, should we have offered OBL a touchy feely hug and then sent him to sensitivity training classes :rolleyes:

I cannot believe you all apparently think invading Afganistan and removing The "OBL could NEVER have done that and we have no clue where he is" Taliban :rolleyes:

Seriously, what else could we do but invade Afganistan. I am all ears . . . . :)

No, we should've strunk while the iron was hot, smart ass, not give them a two month running start. :laugh:

[dissention]

Thanks! I'm doing two shows per night, thru Thursday. ;)

I'll be sure to get tickets away from the stage, so as not to pull a Mick and soak you with my bodily fluids after I erupt into laughter. :laugh: