FahrenHYPE 9/11

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And, again, no mention of what, you know, Bush was SUPPOSED to do.

He did all you could expect him to do. They told him that the attack was still going on, that more was coming. However, you'd think they would have had some secret service carry him out of the room to safety.

 

And the teacher thing is stupid. She didn't know what was going on until the rest of us did, and so what if she thought it was the right thing because a bunch of kids weren't bothered by people coming in and escorting the President away, in light of what happened? Her word that he did the right thing doesn't mean any more than some yahoo on the internet who thinks he should have stood up and started shouting out orders to scramble jets.

 

Moore hasn't made a SINGLE documentary that was accurate on ANY level.

Well, "Strange Brew" was a pretty accurate documentary regarding the behavior of Canadian drunks.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, again, no mention of what, you know, Bush was SUPPOSED to do.

He did all you could expect him to do. They told him that the attack was still going on, that more was coming. However, you'd think they would have had some secret service carry him out of the room to safety.

 

 

In all honesty, he was safer there than he would have been even on Air Force One.

And the teacher thing is stupid. She didn't know what was going on until the rest of us did, and so what if she thought it was the right thing because a bunch of kids weren't bothered by people coming in and escorting the President away, in light of what happened? Her word that he did the right thing doesn't mean any more than some yahoo on the internet who thinks he should have stood up and started shouting out orders to scramble jets.

Her point was that he could've easily scared the hell out of the kids if he didn't act so calmly. He remained calm -- his own advisors suggested he not say a word when he learned about it --- and acted when he could more readily stop what he was doing without scaring the children.

Moore hasn't made a SINGLE documentary that was accurate on ANY level.

Well, "Strange Brew" was a pretty accurate documentary regarding the behavior of Canadian drunks.

I find it hard to believe "Strange Brew" was by him, seeing as how it was pretty darned funny.

 

Well, it was when I last saw it.

 

Which was about 10 years ago or so.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

His facts are WRONG. His Unocal pipeline claim is weak since Bush didn't support it and it was abandoned.

 

His claims about bin Ladens having too much influence over Bush through Carlyle is weak since the group from which he manages to tie Carlyle to the US gov't was sold off before Bush Sr. joined.

 

His claims about the election in FL are weak since FOX is unable to make anybody claim anything and they all claimed FL early.

 

Do you want more?

 

You didn't answer the question. You saying something is WRONG dosen't necessarily mean it's right. Why should your stance hold more merit? Or the sources you use, when they can be turned around and contradicted by another source?

One of the ONLY weapons system Bush HAS stopped was the Crusader missile. The Crusader missile was one of the precious few military projects that Carlyle had any stake in.

 

And Moore needs to prove that they are profiting, which he cannot.

 

The company will be invovled with the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastruture and they are expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract. Bush I is part of this group and had daily CIA briefings. This is a huge conflict of interest, one that cannot be denied.

 

The Carlyle Group

 

It's a LIE. It's not the start of anything.

 

It's started an awareness to the issues regarding the Bush Administration and corruption. For many, it was an eye-opener. For some, it was all well known. Some don't need to be told by Michael Moore what the issues are. But his documentary provided a mainstream outlet for those that would otherwise be out in the dark. Maybe this is why it pisses you off so much. You can scream LIE all you want but it dosen't make you right. The obvious nature of the situation can be seen, even if F9/11 were never made.

 

If it was "taboo", it wouldn't be done routinely and regularly.

 

Until recently, it was and in some cases still is, especially among the general concensus. So many people are ignorant to what really goes on in the world, but at least the word seems to be getting out.

 

No, his claims REALLY aren't. The pipeline claim has been debunked by NUMEROUS people. The "FOX called FL early for Bush" claim is laughable --- and disproven in many places. His "the recounts show Gore won" has been disproven repeatedly.

 

So, who are these "thousands of sources", since his sources don't even back up his claims (see the whole deal about what percentage of funding in the US the Saud family has)?

 

There are thousands of activists taking a stand and brining awareness of the Bush Administraions practices. I don't need to tell you this. They may not back up everything Moore says, but they re-iterate much of, as well as going deeper into many of the issues that were not discussed in F9/11. Some of Moore's claims probably can't be backed up, but he is just one voice in a sea of many.

 

Lies should never be listened to. Period.

 

I agree. Funny, yet ironic really.

 

C-Bacon, as a rule, you are in no position to ridicule anybody's opinions. I could mention your views on giving Europeans a vote in US elections and how saying that is wrong is "ethnocentric".

 

The ironic thing here is that your using the same tactics here that accuse Moore of. You can hammer down on the point I made about US elections all you want, it dosent matter. Your clearly taking what I said out of context, which was posting the article and saying I agreed with the PRINCIPLE behind it. I never said Europeans should get a full fledged vote, but rather emphasizing how other nations suffer from US foreign policy, a police force they have no say in. The article was an exaggeration of the point. And the ethnocentric remark was in regards to those with the "Fuck the world, who cares about them" mentality. Not the fact that they're ethnocentric for disagreeing with the notion of foreign voting (which I dont endorse). If you want clarification, go back and read the thread.

 

Moore should be shot down because he has a detrimental impact on society. He bleeds colleges dry for money and lies to students too fucking stupid to know better. He produces crap movies that sheep lap up without any critical thought of how insanely absurd his theories are.

 

Good luck with those hopes and dreams. Even if Moore is wrong 90% of the time, he's presented the issue and made people aware. Your cynical response that he should be 'shot down' is a testament to your anger over him that have seemingly struck a chord with you. I wonder why...

[Guest GreatOne]

The company will be invovled with the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastruture and they are expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract. Bush I is part of this group and had daily CIA briefings. This is a huge conflict of interest, one that cannot be denied.

Again, what's been PROVEN here? It's nothing other than 'Haliburton BOO!' whine otherwise.........

 

It's started an awareness to the issues regarding the Bush Administration and corruption. For many, it was an eye-opener.

 

The obvious nature of the situation can be seen, even if F9/11 were never made

 

Wait, but I thought the majority DIDN'T know about 'the Bush corruption' pre-F911, now they 'would have seen the obvious nature even if F911 were never made'? Can we keep a straight position here, is that too much to ask?

 

There are thousands of activists taking a stand and brining awareness of the Bush Administraions practices

 

Or just bitching to hear themselves bitch. Again they KNOW of these 'corrupt practices' because.........

 

The ironic thing here is that your using the same tactics here that accuse Moore of. You can hammer down on the point I made about US elections all you want, it dosent matter. Your clearly taking what I said out of context,

 

You're right, you never said anything about how the United States should listen to Europeans more when they elect their leaders. OKEE-DOKEE...............

 

but rather emphasizing how other nations suffer from US foreign policy, a police force they have no say in

 

And they should why?

 

Even if Moore is wrong 90% of the time, he's presented the issue and made people aware

 

So the only thing that matters is 'presenting the issue', accuracy be damned..................

 

Well Dan Rather'd agree with you

[cbacon 0]

Again, what's been PROVEN here? It's nothing other than 'Haliburton BOO!' whine otherwise.........

 

That groups like Carlyle and Halliburton are death profiteers? That the vasts amounts of money being made is from a war with seemingly unclear goals?

 

Wait, but I thought the majority DIDN'T know about 'the Bush corruption' pre-F911, now they 'would have seen the obvious nature even if F911 were never made'? Can we keep a straight position here, is that too much to ask?

 

You obviously didn't read that right. I was referring to the general concensus being in the dark. Only the few that give a damn would look further into it. Now, the average Joe consumed by Monday Night Football and Tostitos at least has a general idea of what's going on. If he chooses to ignore it, so be it, but he'll typically remain ignorant to the world around him. If he takes into account what's being said in films like F9/11, then there's a chance he'll be more aware of other aspects surrounding foreign politics and world issues. If he uses F9/11 as his only means of information, that isn't good either, and is almost as bad if he were to just ignore it.

 

Or just bitching to hear themselves bitch. Again they KNOW of these 'corrupt practices' because...

 

A typical response from the other side refusing to acknowledge something they'd rather not here. They know of them because anyone with a sense of rationality can see them. All it takes is a little research. And it dosen't take a genius to know that issues like the war on Iraq was a terrible decision and that the media has led the public into a false sense of paranoia.

 

You're right, you never said anything about how the United States should listen to Europeans more when they elect their leaders. OKEE-DOKEE...

 

I believe some consideration should be taken, yes. The United States should take into account what many of it's allies say, just as they do. Only seems fair , considering the fact the US has a say in theirs. And by having a say, I mean removing their democratically elected leaders by force. When your meddling in their affairs, it becomes an issue. That said, this is swaying off topic.

 

So the only thing that matters is 'presenting the issue', accuracy be damned...

 

No, the accuracy does not lie within the teachings of Michael Moore alone. That requires finding more than just him as an outlet for the issues he presents. They may contradict him, or even totally discredit him at times, but the avenues that are opened are the key issue.

[Guest MikeSC]

His facts are WRONG. His Unocal pipeline claim is weak since Bush didn't support it and it was abandoned.

 

His claims about bin Ladens having too much influence over Bush through Carlyle is weak since the group from which he manages to tie Carlyle to the US gov't was sold off before Bush Sr. joined.

 

His claims about the election in FL are weak since FOX is unable to make anybody claim anything and they all claimed FL early.

 

Do you want more?

You didn't answer the question. You saying something is WRONG dosen't necessarily mean it's right. Why should your stance hold more merit? Or the sources you use, when they can be turned around and contradicted by another source?

My saying it's wrong is based on FACT.

 

Some facts:

* The networks called FL for Gore before the polls closed. When the CORRECT call of Bush winning comes down, the polls had been closed for, roughly, 4 hours.

* Jeb Bush was not involved in the recount.

* There is not one single thing Katherine Harris did that was not EXPRESSLY stated as within her defined legal powers.

* Who worked for FOX's election center is beyond irrelevant, since at the time of ANY decision, the polls had already been closed --- oh, and the call was CORRECT when they ended up making it for Bush.

* The voting lists got purged because there was a MASSIVE scandal in the Miami mayoral election where there was so much fraud involving voter registration that the result was thrown out by a judge. The Miami herald had reporters win Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on it.

* About the recount --- from one of Moore's own sources "The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered."

* The recount in FL actually had Bush winning the recount under any of the systems Gore requested.

* Bush's tax cuts passed before 9/11, so he wasn't having big problems.

* Bush's time at Camp David and at his ranch consisted of A LOT of actual work --- Moore seems to have missed summits with Fox and Putin, numerous nominations, signing a lot of legislation...

* Bush learned of the attacks WHILE with the kids. He couldn't really leave immediately without causing the kids to panic.

* According to Richard Clarke, Bush INCREASED anti-terrorism intel funding impressively before 9/11.

* Read the last paragraph of the PDB. Hard to take action on threats that can't be verified.

* We armed Iraq, in a bad idea, solely to extend the Iran/Iraq War, hopefully weakening BOTH regimes beyond repair.

* Governors of states have NO power to invite foreign dignitaries, nor do they have the power to DISINVITE them. The Taliban was in TX in 1997 because of BILL CLINTON inviting them.

* According to the 9/11 Commission, no Saud was allowed to leave the US before air traffic was re-opened.

* Bath's name was blacked out due to it being ILLEGAL to distribute personal medical info about people.

* Bath funded Arbusto with his own money, not bin Laden money.

* Bush wasn't chagred with insider trading for a reason --- lack o' evidence that he, you know, did it.

* The number of people who are involved with Carlyle would take YEARS to discuss.

 

However, I'd LOVE to hear Moore explain why Carlyle investor George Soros is attacking Bush.

* Moore mentions BDM constantly, though BDM was sold from Carlyle before Bush Sr. joined the board.

* American Presidents sucking up to the Saud royal family has been consistent since the days of FDR.

* $860B is not 6-7% of investment in America. It MIGHT be 6-7% of FOREIGN investment in America --- which is very much a different thing.

* Secret Service protection is offered to ANY embassy that requests it.

* Enron's pipeline plan did not involve Afghanistan whatsoever. Moore just combined Enron and Unocal's plans.

* Ashcroft lost to the dead man's wife, who the governor vowed to name to the Senate seat if the dead man won. In fact, Ashcroft showed considerable class is not filing suit, as the result would have never stood up to a legal challenge.

* The whole thing about one trooper to guard Oregon's roads around the coast is bullshit --- as the TROOPER HIMSELF states. The Coast Guard handles most of the security --- as they always have.

* Iraq had shot at American planes, non-stop, for roughly 12 years. Plus, there was the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. Plus, Saddam said that American and British interests should be the targets of jihad.

* About the military refusing to allow the media to show coffins --- since he tries to imply that this is a new thing, I'll quote one of his sources:

"For the past 13 years, the Pentagon has barred reporters from witnessing the transport of soldiers' flag-draped coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware." Amanda Ripley, "An Image of Grief Returns," Time, May 3, 2004.

* Bush has INCREASED soldier's pay 3.7%.

* For every VA hospital he has suggested closing, he's proposed opening a new one.

* Two Congressmen have children in Iraq, not one.

 

In fact, cutely enough, in Moore's report on the Commission verifying his findings, he actually CHANGES his charges. More than once.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, what's been PROVEN here? It's nothing other than 'Haliburton BOO!' whine otherwise.........

 

That groups like Carlyle and Halliburton are death profiteers? That the vasts amounts of money being made is from a war with seemingly unclear goals?

No mention of George Soros in this death profiteering. Weird.

 

Do you realize how EASILY you can link Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden, if you use his techniques to do so?

Wait, but I thought the majority DIDN'T know about 'the Bush corruption' pre-F911, now they 'would have seen the obvious nature even if F911 were never made'? Can we keep a straight position here, is that too much to ask?

No, F 9/11 didn't actually PROVE anything. It simply catalogued lies and mistruths.

Or just bitching to hear themselves bitch. Again they KNOW of these 'corrupt practices' because...

A typical response from the other side refusing to acknowledge something they'd rather not here. They know of them because anyone with a sense of rationality can see them. All it takes is a little research. And it dosen't take a genius to know that issues like the war on Iraq was a terrible decision and that the media has led the public into a false sense of paranoia.

And your response is the typical one of somebody who has no factual basis behind his conspiracy theories.

You're right, you never said anything about how the United States should listen to Europeans more when they elect their leaders. OKEE-DOKEE...

 

I believe some consideration should be taken, yes. The United States should take into account what many of it's allies say, just as they do. Only seems fair , considering the fact the US has a say in theirs. And by having a say, I mean removing their democratically elected leaders by force.

Hey, you piqued my interest. Can you point to one single example of this happening recently? Just one little example? Hell, I'll give you for the last 15 years. Just one time when it happened.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Thanks Bacon for saving me some time with this reply here.

 

I believe some consideration should be taken, yes. The United States should take into account what many of it's allies say, just as they do. Only seems fair , considering the fact the US has a say in theirs. And by having a say, I mean removing their democratically elected leaders by force.

 

OK, democratically elected? Care to specify? Like, names?

[cbacon 0]

Gladly.

 

Well, let's see here, the US has been everywhere, making the world a better place and all:

 

- There was the military coup in Chile to remove their democratically elected president, Salvador Allende

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/america...3/cia.chile.02/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terroris...oup_USHand.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0527-01.htm

 

- There was also the coup that removed Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti that was just 7 months ago.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17995

 

- In 1953 they removed the democratically elected government in Iran since they wanted to protect their oil interests from the British. Thankfully for the Iranians, this ushered in decades of dictatorships, surpression and murder.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/midea...-cia-index.html

http://www.rense.com/general40/roots.htm

 

- The 1954 coup in Guatemala

 

http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

 

- There was the mess in Nicaragua

 

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolnicelection.html

 

Democrtically elected or not, the US has also intervened in Italy, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Panama, Libya, Greece, Cuba, Indonesia, etc.

 

But hey, American foreign policy has saved us from those evil commies, and millions are prospering from the democracy that the US has brought.

[cbacon 0]

Getting back on topic:

 

Another documentary aired tonight on CBC that I missed. For those interested, there's a repeat on CBC this Friday at 10. Apparently it aired in some theatres in the States too:

 

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BUSH

Sunday October 17, 2004 at 10pm ET/PT  (2 hours)

repeating Friday October 22, 2004 at 10pm ET/PT

 

If you're not yet having nightmares about the world being in the hands of a circle of crazed zealots, this should do it. The World According to Bush, a two-hour documentary about the inner-workings of the Bush administration, will frighten even the most hardened Washington-watchers. Fans and critics of the acclaimed Fahrenheit 9/11 will want to see this thoughtful and damning investigation of the U.S. administration.

 

Who are the Bushes? Apparently, they're the "quiet dynasty" of modern America-but in reality, their "dynasty" is one of inconceivable family secrets, painstakingly concealed. The current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, made his fortune by managing Nazi companies after Hitler seized power. In 1942, his companies were confiscated for collaboration with the enemy. George Bush Sr., president from 1988 to 1992, armed and financed Saddam Hussein. He approved the shipping of germ warfare strains to Iraq, enabling the country to launch a chemical attack against Iranian troops and the Kurdish population.

 

The World According to Bush aims to show how the Bushes, father and son, have not only dined with the devil, but have often invited themselves to his table. The bin Ladens and the Bushes have been longtime business partners, and the family of the future terrorist chief indirectly financed George W. Bush's political career. This unnatural alliance has continued since the Sept. 11 attacks: Bush Sr. is a top official in one of the biggest private investment funds in the USA, Carlyle, a group that has invested heavily in the arms industry. The Bradley tanks and the missiles used in the latest war against Iraq are made by firms controlled by Carlyle…and the bin Ladens. For the latter are Bush's associates within this investment fund.

 

Much of The World According to Bush takes the form of one-on-one interviews and includes Bush's speech writer David Frum; former weapons inspectors Hans Blix and David Kay; presidential adviser Richard Perle; Secretary of State Colin Powell; former CIA director James Woolsey; and former UN secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar.

 

The World According to Bush is directed by award-winning French director William Karel (Dark Side of the Moon), and produced by Agnès Vicariot Jean-François Lepetit. It is a Flach Film Production in association with France 2.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_171004.html

 

 

The Bush doc Americans won't see

American distributors not willing to back The World According to Bush

Tuesday, October 05, 2004 @09:01AM

by Shawna O'Flaherty

 

Film

 

The World According to Bush has been called the accompanying film to Fahrenheit 9/11, but such a comparison is unfair to director William Karel. Companion film, it is not. A film that should have received widespread attention, it is.

 

French director Karel offers a balanced examination of the Bush administration and the last 12 years of American foreign policy. Karel was invited to show The World According to Bush at the Cannes Film Festival when it looked like Michael Moore's film wouldn't be ready on time, but it was eventually pulled from the final lineup when Moore came through at the last minute. There couldn't be two anti-Bush films at Cannes. We were rejected like an old sock, said Karel in a post-screening interview.

 

Few Americans will ever see The World According to Bush. No one will distribute it in the United States. It's only being shown in three cinemas in Paris, a few in the French countryside, in Montreal, Quebec City and in Italy. Whose vote am I going to influence in France? No one. Michael Moore was trying to influence the way people vote. Who am I going to convince in France? Karel asked.

 

Karel said he chose to make a film about the Bush administration rather than the government of his native France because no one would talk in France. Only the Americans were willing to talk. I tried for 10 years to make this kind of a film in France, but in the end only the Americans wanted to speak.

 

The film relies heavily on first hand sources tied to the President, the White House, the CIA, The Washington Post, the military, Harvard University and the United Nations, which is a refreshingly balanced change of pace from Moore's in-your-face propaganda tactics which pull on your heart strings. From Bush's business partners in the Carlyle group to angry CIA agents, Karel seeks out authoritative speakers who are knowledgeable in their subjects, while still allowing the viewer to make up their own mind.

 

We spoke with 25 sources: people who are close to Bush, who have worked with him, people who know him, reliable sources. We did that, but we didn't take any positions, said Karel. He goes a step further in this documentary by trying to explain in relatively simple terms the Middle East's hostility towards the United States by showing the ties the neo-conservative religious right-wing Evangelist Christian movement, which President George W. Bush is a member of, have with Israel. He does this without passing value judgment on the various countries and religions involved, and without a sarcastic audio-track that accompanies Moore's 'documentary'.

 

If the title sounds familiar, that's because the film has already played on television stations RDI in Quebec and France 2 in France. It's now making the jump to the big screen, this time without any commercial interruptions.

 

The film took a year to make. The neo-conservative circle around President Bush, which puts their hands on the power, use him as a puppet and make decisions in his place, inspired me to make the film," he said. "It took almost 30 years for them to gain power, but they succeeded. These people are the ones that are directing the White House. There is a policy in the White House; these people within Bush's inner circle are not allowed to be a part of any documentaries, unless they have already left their position within the government.

 

http://thelink.concordia.ca/fringe/04/10/04/2145255.shtml

 

Interesting stuff.

 

EDIT: Actually, it's on CBC Newsworld now...

[Red Baron 0]

CBC, the best, and unbiased news coverage in the world.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And once again, Mike ruins yet another thread outside of CE.

[treble 0]

I watched some of that show tonight, and it was ok. Not as preachy as Fahrenheit, but probably even more mean-spirited. I'm not quite sure how much of it I believe (that stuff about Hitler seems a little too out there for me to have never heard of it before, especially since the guy's son AND grandson have both been President now, you'd think that would be common knowlegde).

 

There were also strange moments where the narrator would say one thing and then have an interview with someone who'd say the opposite, and then never follow it up (example, the narrator said, at one point, 'Bush [sr.] sent anthrax to Hussein' and then right after that, someone from Carlyle, who's name escapes me, said 'We did not send anthrax to Hussein' and then the topic wasn't touched again).

 

I think CBC's pretty much preaching to the choir, though, by showing this, as a good chunk of Canadians don't like Bush, anyway.

[Red Baron 0]

In a recent Canadian poll I think it was 86 per cent of Canadians do not like Bush at all.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Now, the average Joe consumed by Monday Night Football and Tostitos at least has a general idea of what's going on.

If Tostitos are consuming YOU, I think international politics can be put on your backburner

[cbacon 0]

Haha, touchè

[Guest MikeSC]

Gladly.

 

Well, let's see here, the US has been everywhere, making the world a better place and all:

 

- There was the military coup in Chile to remove their democratically elected president, Salvador Allende

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/america...3/cia.chile.02/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terroris...oup_USHand.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0527-01.htm

 

- There was also the coup that removed Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti that was just 7 months ago.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17995

 

- In 1953 they removed the democratically elected government in Iran since they wanted to protect their oil interests from the British. Thankfully for the Iranians, this ushered in decades of dictatorships, surpression and murder.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/midea...-cia-index.html

http://www.rense.com/general40/roots.htm

 

- The 1954 coup in Guatemala

 

http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

 

- There was the mess in Nicaragua

 

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolnicelection.html

 

Democrtically elected or not, the US has also intervened in Italy, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Panama, Libya, Greece, Cuba, Indonesia, etc.

 

But hey, American foreign policy has saved us from those evil commies, and millions are prospering from the democracy that the US has brought.

Hence the reason I said recently. I do not deny we've done plenty of bad in the past.

 

HOWEVER, if you're attempting to portray Haiti as a democracy, I'll just mention that Aristide's most recent "election" saw Aristide winning 92% of the vote after a lot of voter intimidation and violence against all opposition. 92% of the vote indicates it is no democracy. No democratically elected person can win 92% of a vote. It is a statistical impossibility.

 

And we didn't overthrow him. We simply didn't protect him, as well we shouldn't have. His "presidency" was as bad as the Duvalier regimes that came before him.

 

And, like it or not, our option WAS better than the Communist option.

 

BTW, in Nicaragua, the Soviets installed the gov't that the voters, when given a free election, overwhelmingly rejected. Like it or not, our "interference" was actually protecting the citizenry and sided with their supported gov't.

 

And, C-Bacon, I avoid the CFL because it's a cheap Canadian knock-off of a better American product. Why would I watch a cheap Canadian knock-off of Fahrenheit 9/11 that is even less honest?

And once again, Mike ruins yet another thread outside of CE.

Actually, it was going well until your usual (non)-contribution.

-=Mike

[Guest ken adams]

CBacon said:

"I believe some consideration should be taken, yes. The United States should take into account what many of it's allies say, just as they do. Only seems fair , considering the fact the US has a say in theirs."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are these the same Allies that had under the table deals with sadam under the banner of the "Oil for Food" program? That's what I thought.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And once again, Mike ruins yet another thread outside of CE.

Actually, it was going well until your usual (non)-contribution.

-=Mike

God forbid someone actually gets the last word in on you.

[Guest GreatOne]

I know because bitter whine is such the way to end a conversation................

[Guest MikeSC]

And once again, Mike ruins yet another thread outside of CE.

Actually, it was going well until your usual (non)-contribution.

-=Mike

God forbid someone actually gets the last word in on you.

Basically.

-=Mike

[Jericholic82 0]

Wow, nice of you "free thinkers" to be such lemmings.

Isn't it funny how the so-called free thinkers are always the biggest lemmings of all?

 

If they were thinking so freely, maybe I could tell one Bush-hating, Satanism-embracing, idealistic college student from another, right?

dude, where did you get satinist from? lol anyways, I do hate Bush but for more then the usual reasons. Probably more personal, as my dad is a disabled vietnam vet and it sickens me to see how DUBYA and Cheney were able to hide from the war. and besides that he has cut funding from the VA and this has hurt my dad, who has had to wait for months to get physical therapy for his bad arm. a

 

and no matter what he says now, if we get stuck in this iraq war for many more years, will he have no chocie but to bring back the draft? and what are we doing about the countires with real WMDS like North Korea and Iran? I am worried about the future of my life and maybe my childrens lives if I ever have any.

 

I believe that this country is still in a slump and within 3 years we are going to see the real impact of Bushs stance on the economy. ie whos goign to pay for this war? the answer is we are and by the time we are old we may have no ss and no healthcare. kinda scary aint it?

 

 

my whole point is, when the country has been in a bad way for awhile who do you blame? (outside of the post 9-11 recession which I can totally understand) you have to make the government responsible. that is why I am voting for Kerry. I think he can do an ok job, and at the very least will get some of these ultra conservatives out of congress and the other more important posistions (as we all know the president of the us is just the figurehead-he still needs the houses approval for most important issues right? )

 

Is it so wrong for me to be anti-bush and pro-kerry?

 

can you respect me for these comments at least?

 

 

and one last thing- bush keeps referencing the demos as being for big government-but what is more big government than policy that allows them to spy on us for practically no reason if they so choose? and allowing the FCC to ruin entertainment to fit the values of extremely right wing ultra conservatives?

 

and pandering to the religious right like Bush does so well

 

 

and its amazing how great his spindoctors are huh?

 

 

look I am going to stop ranting for now.

 

 

all I am asking is for everyone here to respect each others opinions(even if there are out there) because our freedom of speech is going away fast as we talk right now.

 

 

so please don't judge me as some typical liberal lemming as you said

 

 

I am liberal ( I woudn't say ultra left though) and proud of it and I totally acknowledge that my judgment will be biased in that way

 

 

thanks for hearing me out fellow posters

 

 

 

MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD ON NOVEMBER 2

 

PEACE OUT

[Guest GreatOne]

Wow, nice of you "free thinkers" to be such lemmings.

Isn't it funny how the so-called free thinkers are always the biggest lemmings of all?

 

If they were thinking so freely, maybe I could tell one Bush-hating, Satanism-embracing, idealistic college student from another, right?

dude, where did you get satinist from? lol anyways, I do hate Bush but for more then the usual reasons. Probably more personal, as my dad is a disabled vietnam vet and it sickens me to see how DUBYA and Cheney were able to hide from the war. and besides that he has cut funding from the VA and this has hurt my dad, who has had to wait for months to get physical therapy for his bad arm. a

 

and no matter what he says now, if we get stuck in this iraq war for many more years, will he have no chocie but to bring back the draft? and what are we doing about the countires with real WMDS like North Korea and Iran? I am worried about the future of my life and maybe my childrens lives if I ever have any.

 

I believe that this country is still in a slump and within 3 years we are going to see the real impact of Bushs stance on the economy. ie whos goign to pay for this war? the answer is we are and by the time we are old we may have no ss and no healthcare. kinda scary aint it?

 

 

my whole point is, when the country has been in a bad way for awhile who do you blame? (outside of the post 9-11 recession which I can totally understand) you have to make the government responsible. that is why I am voting for Kerry. I think he can do an ok job, and at the very least will get some of these ultra conservatives out of congress and the other more important posistions (as we all know the president of the us is just the figurehead-he still needs the houses approval for most important issues right? )

 

Is it so wrong for me to be anti-bush and pro-kerry?

 

can you respect me for these comments at least?

 

 

and one last thing- bush keeps referencing the demos as being for big government-but what is more big government than policy that allows them to spy on us for practically no reason if they so choose? and allowing the FCC to ruin entertainment to fit the values of extremely right wing ultra conservatives?

 

and pandering to the religious right like Bush does so well

 

 

and its amazing how great his spindoctors are huh?

 

 

look I am going to stop ranting for now.

 

 

all I am asking is for everyone here to respect each others opinions(even if there are out there) because our freedom of speech is going away fast as we talk right now.

 

 

so please don't judge me as some typical liberal lemming as you said

 

 

I am liberal ( I woudn't say ultra left though) and proud of it and I totally acknowledge that my judgment will be biased in that way

 

 

thanks for hearing me out fellow posters

 

 

 

MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD ON NOVEMBER 2

 

PEACE OUT

Can somebody get a violin in here, STAT?

[Jericholic82 0]

lmao

 

damn when did I get so sappy?

 

 

screw it I can take the crticism

 

 

thanks for responding

[Guest GreatOne]

Since you asked, let's see:

 

The VA has ALWAYS been fucked, no matter who's running the ship. Bush HASN'T slashed the VA, in fact the opposite is true. It's a supply-demand thing.

 

We're not 'in peril' in Iraq and Afghanistan (or here for that matter) as you'd like to believe.

 

What does Kerry honestly bring to the table except THE PLAN!~?

 

How has the FCC 'ruined entertainment'? If anything's ruined entertainment, it's been, you know, UN-entertaining crap.

 

 

 

So yes, get the chin music going.

[Guest Vitamin X]

We're not 'in peril' in Iraq and Afghanistan (or here for that matter) as you'd like to believe.

I beg to differ, but I suppose this is still a matter of opinion on whether we were correct in going to war or not. I'm not for pulling all the troops out like some insane liberals are, because since we already committed to the job we have to finish it. However, there's still a ton of kids dying over there, but what people neglect to see is that the situation is more like Bosnia but without the UN than it is Vietnam. Just this war is more magnified because it was Bush this time going in there alone and invading a sovereign nation (and calling it liberation) than it was Clinton in the 90's getting rid of a genocidal dictator, but WITH the backing of the United Nations.

 

Another thing: If we're not "in peril" at home, what's with all the use of military force to defend ourselves? Why did Bush have to create an entirely new branch of government in Homeland Security if there wasn't a need strong enough for it?

 

What does Kerry honestly bring to the table except THE PLAN!~?

 

And what does Bush bring that Kerry doesn't? He's been proven as President, no shit, and we know where he stands, but there's honestly no way to tell if Kerry can follow through with his plan or not if elected President. Bush is more of the same, and many people in the country are upset with his policies and his way of going about things, so Kerry offers a possible change from all that. You can't criticize a person for supporting change, I guess unless you prefer a regressive Victorian society like the current conservative government seems to. (Which hopefully could be taken care of if Bush does get re-elected and Ashcroft gets the boot as said in that one CE thread, but still..)

 

How has the FCC 'ruined entertainment'? If anything's ruined entertainment, it's been, you know, UN-entertaining crap.

 

I think I'd have to agree with this, but more of the blame can be put on the attorney general for ruining entertainment than anything. The FCC you could argue, has ruined entertainment by attempting to regulate things to a ridiculous extent as a result of the Super Bowl halftime incident (like kicking Howard Stern off the air), yet allowing the monopolization of Clearchannel to freely continue on radio airwaves. I don't think this is anything that will change significantly though, if Kerry gets elected or not.