Farenheit 911 [Archive] - Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

dchester

07-10-2004, 04:44 PM

Rather than just me saying that Michael Moore is a lying sack of shiite, I thought i'd post this article from MSNBC that pretty much says the same thing, albeit more eloquently than I could.

Fahrenheit 9/11 distorts the truth (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/)

Deceit and deception is breathtaking

By Joe Scarborough
Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET June 25, 2004

I went to see ?Fahrenheit 9/11? Thursday expecting to be entertained despite political objections, but I was wrong. To say Moore took liberty with the truth would be like saying that Ken Lay took liberties with Enron's accounting practices. Fahrenheit 9/11,? like Enron's accountants, obviously figured that when it came to making money, the end justified the means.

In both cases, the scale of deceit and deception is breathtaking. Though I'd need four hours to tell you the list of all the falsehoods from Moore's two-hour movie, let me give you a few glimpses into his twisted logic:

Moore's movie begins by pitching his conspiracy theory about the 2000 election. We're all told in the audience by all recounting methods Al Gore won Florida. That drew a big gasp from the crowd. But, shockingly, this first fact cited by Moore's movie is a lie. Didn't anybody associated with Miramax or Michael Moore's movie read newspapers after the election, when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?

And what of the second conspiracy theory, suggesting that George W. Bush kept Americans grounded after 9/11 but let the bin Laden family escape American airspace scot-free? An FBI agent suggested President Bush's action was an insult to 3,000 dead Americans, while Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan dramatically demands on tape that we must have an investigation to find out who approved this.

But Michael and the senator both know who approved the bin Laden transfer: It was none other than that Bush-bashing hero of the left, Richard Clarke. He admitted it in the 9/11 Commission. Now, it's funny how Michael Moore used Clarke's 9/11 testimony to bash Bush in other parts of the movie, but decided to edit out that part that lays waste to bin Laden-and- Bush conspiracy theory.

These two gross distortions are in the first five minutes of the film. But I can tell you that this film can only add to coarsening of America's democracy. Moore seems to promote the following slanderous conspiracy theories in his movie:

  *   The Bushes and the bin Ladens were so close that Bush let their family skip out of town while Americans were grounded,

  *   That the bin Laden family somehow helped George W. Bush start his first oil company, and that George W. Bush cares more about Saudi Arabia than America because the Saudis funneled $1.4 billion to Bush family interests.

  *   America didn't invade Afghanistan to kick out the Taliban. America attacked Afghanistan so we could put an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. That's why George Bush didn't care if the Taliban got away. (Oh, really? I don't think they got away.)

  *   The White House purposely tried to scare Americans into believing there was a terror threat after 9/11 so they could pass the Patriot Act, which they had already dreamed up before these 9/11 attacks even occurred.

  *   We invaded Iraq for no other reason than their oil, allowing young American kids to die just so oil companies could make more money.

Now, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories that are simply unsupported by the facts. But Moore goes on to show pictures of dead Iraqi babies, followed immediately by American soldiers talking about the rush they got listening to rock C.D.s while they shot at anything they moved in Iraq. Why didn't Moore just write "baby killers" on the screen and point to U.S. troops?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Michael Moore would make this kind of movie, but I am stunned that movie critics, Hollywood moguls and liberal movie viewers across America really think so little of America, its soldiers and its leaders.

Friends, it's a dark, grim and distorted perspective of our great nation. I think it's just wrong.
________
Mercedes-Benz C216 history (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C216)

Moebius

07-10-2004, 08:49 PM

It's a sad thing. The man really does have talent for making movies, but wastes them on his bashing conspiracy theories. I'm not a big Bush supporter any more, in fact I'm pretty disappointed with him. But I do at least pay enough attention to know some of the facts surrounding all his mistakes.

The really scary fact is that people buy Moore's crap hook, line, and sinker.

Annihilus

07-10-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Moebius
It's a sad thing. The man really does have talent for making movies, but wastes them on his bashing conspiracy theories. I'm not a big Bush supporter any more, in fact I'm pretty disappointed with him. But I do at least pay enough attention to know some of the facts surrounding all his mistakes.

The really scary fact is that people buy Moore's crap hook, line, and sinker.

That's pretty much where I'm at with Moore and his movies. The beginning of Bowling for Columbine was pretty good and it did make you think about some things - but he's definately got an agenda and it ruins a lot of what he is trying to do (get people to think).

His movies are like Christmas presents for left-wingers.

thomas144

07-11-2004, 12:31 PM

I agreed with everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 and don't even understand what the controversy is about.

That the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have a long-standing business relationship is pretty ironic, isn't it?

If I may cherry-pick from the Joe Scarborough article, I got hung up right away on a couple of remarks:

when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?

This is simply not what the NORC study found. They did find that if the recount had been done in only the four counties Gore had requested, he would still have lost, but ironically they found that a state-wide recount would have come out in Gore's favor. You can read about the study results in the famous CNN story (famous for it's odd title):
Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

The study demonstrated a variety of "recounting methods" by which Gore would have won Florida, so Scarborough is either lieing or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The other Scarborough comment that hangs low on the tree, so to speak, is his comment about how the Taliban didn't get away. We could debate semantics about what that means, of course the Taliban is not formally in charge of Afghanistan (and not sending representatives to Texas on business trips anymore as shown in Fahrenheit 9/11) but they are apparently a very active force in Afghanistan today. I would give you a link to an article in today's New York Times but it would expire. Anyone can go to the site and do a search on "taliban" to see they are very much still in the news. In today's edition there is an article "Afghan Blast Kills 5, Creates Fresh Poll Worries" which includes speculation that the Taliban may be behind the attacks:

The Taliban, ousted by U.S.-led forces in late 2001, have vowed to disrupt the elections. Militant attacks have killed hundreds this year, including election workers, but most of their activity has been in the volatile south and east.

Anyway, the real point Moore was making in the movie was less about destroying our erstwhile pipeline business partners the Taliban and more about catching this bad-guy Osama Bin-Laden, which does not appear to be very high on the administration's agenda.

I guess if you think that Bush is basically a well-meaning guy who had some legitimate reasons for invading Iraq, then Fahrenheit 9/11 must seem totally off the wall. Most people who go to see the movie are divided on issues of things like "is Bush stupid, evil, or both". I don't really think the movie really contributes anything new - it's not going to change anyone's mind I don't think, although if a few 16-year-old boys happen to see the movie and come away thinking their president is a moron, and they don't want to go die in Iraq, that's a good thing.

I did think Moore makes an interesting point at the end about how the working, lower-classes, go to war to defend the property and interests of the upper classes. I have been thinking the same thing lately about how the Bush changes to the Federal tax code put more and more of the tax burden on income taxes and less and less on capital gains, business income, dividends, and inheritance tax, preserving the assets of the wealthy at the expense of people who have to work for a living.

Mark_Henderson

07-11-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
the Bush changes to the Federal tax code put more and more of the tax burden on income taxes and less and less on capital gains, business income, dividends, and inheritance tax, preserving the assets of the wealthy at the expense of people who have to work for a living. [/B]

Interestingly, a lot of the people on the losing end of that will still vote for Bush because of social "cultural war" issues.

I've appreciated all of Michael Moore's movies, but recognize that they're not documentaries -- they're designed to support a specific point of view. I think Roger and Me was the most fair -- brilliant, I thought -- unlike anything I'd seen before it.

Moore makes many important points in F 9/11 -- it's up to you how to interpret them. Posting Joe Scarborough as an unbiased evaluation of Moore is as deceptive as considering F 9/11 an unbiased evaluation of Bush. The only difference to me is that Moore's a lot more entertaining.

One of the funniest things I've seen on television was when Moore showed on TV Nation how hard it was for a black guy to flag down a cab in NYC. A block apart, he placed black actor Yaphet Koto (played the police chief on Homicide) and a mafia guy who had been convicted of murder (Jimmy "the weasel" something). Moore placed a giant neon sign next to the mafia guy that said "convicted felon". Then, he showed all the cabs that swerved past Koto to get to the white guy. He replaced the mafia guy with someone in a clown suit - same thing.

Moore is a unique talent. Sure, he overstates his arguments, but he raises valid points with a lot of wit. If you're not able to discern between fact and ideological slant, you're at fault, not Moore. Anyway, that inability to discern is FoxNews' bread and butter.

dchester

07-11-2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
This is simply not what the NORC study found. They did find that if the recount had been done in only the four counties Gore had requested, he would still have lost, but ironically they found that a state-wide recount would have come out in Gore's favor. You can read about the study results in the famous CNN story (famous for it's odd title):
Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html) OK, so I bit on the CNN link that you posted and I took a look at it. Here is the first paragraph below (and I think it explains the odd, as you described it, title). I take it, since there's no Patriots news for you to practice your trolling skills, this is what you have to resort to.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

________
weed vaporizer (http://weedvaporizer.info/)

ItsGood_ItsGood

07-11-2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by thomas144

when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?

This is simply not what the NORC study found. They did find that if the recount had been done in only the four counties Gore had requested, he would still have lost, but ironically they found that a state-wide recount would have come out in Gore's favor. You can read about the study results in the famous CNN story (famous for it's odd title):
Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

The study demonstrated a variety of "recounting methods" by which Gore would have won Florida, so Scarborough is either lieing or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

This is simply wrong. Every independent count done by media organizations from The Miami Herald to The New York Times to Time and Newsweek all reached the same conclusion: that Bush had more votes than Gore in Florida. Period. Why else would they have dropped the story immediately afterward?

The other Scarborough comment that hangs low on the tree, so to speak, is his comment about how the Taliban didn't get away. We could debate semantics about what that means, of course the Taliban is not formally in charge of Afghanistan (and not sending representatives to Texas on business trips anymore as shown in Fahrenheit 9/11) but they are apparently a very active force in Afghanistan today. I would give you a link to an article in today's New York Times but it would expire. Anyone can go to the site and do a search on "taliban" to see they are very much still in the news. In today's edition there is an article "Afghan Blast Kills 5, Creates Fresh Poll Worries" which includes speculation that the Taliban may be behind the attacks:

That some elements loyal to the Taliban still exist in Afghanistan, rearing their heads long enough to do the only thing they know how, killing people, is undeniable. But to say they "didn't get away" is not semantics. It is fact. They used to run the country. They now live in caves. Girls are once again being educated. If you wish to suggest, as apparently the limosine liberal Moore does, that Bush did not defeat them, speak to any one of thousands of women who have shed their burkas and gone back to their pre-Taliban lives, practicing medicine, teaching and so on. For the first time in our lifetimes, Afghanistan has a respected, civilized leader (Karzai) thanks to Bush, not the Left wing of the Democratic Party.

And just remember: as Bush accomplished this, he did so with the Left in this country fighting him every step of the way. Just as they did to Ronald Reagan as he fought Soviet communism, US liberals like John Kerry were absolutely worthless in Bush's struggle to take these bastards out, and when it was over, acted like they were NOT on the wrong side of history again.

Moore likes to say that "You can't declare war on a noun" but he conveniently ignores the dozens, scores, hundreds of Al Queda leaders that have been killed or captured in this war. If Bush had stopped at the Afghan border, do you honestly think a bomb-thrower like Moore would be praising him?

spiderman

07-12-2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by thomas144
I agreed with everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 and don't even understand what the controversy is about.

WOW! A genuine Moore disciple...don't drink the purple kool-aid man!

The problem is that Michael Moore is so blinded by ideology that he has completely lost his ability to think critically. Now to be honest, I have never, and will never watch this piece of crap F 9/11.

Why?

He set out to make a movie that would "bash Bush" and simply drummed up whatever evidence that he could find in order to accomplish that end. That in a nut shell is just "bad science".

But, what I find startling, and quite scary, is how everyone is so willing to make the war on terrorism a political issue. Today's politicians are more interested in fighting the Democrat vs. Republican war then they are the war on terror, and many otherwise intelligent Americans have fallen into this trap.

What happened on 9/11 wasn't because Bush is our President, just like what happened to the USS Cole didn't happen because Clinton was our President. It happened because we are Americans, and we are Democratic, and we let our women wear bikini's, and become Doctors, and Lawyers, and we have freedom of speech, etc. etc. etc.

Now I fully agree with those who would suggest that we could have followed a different path after 9/11, and would love to hear someone like Moore actually, and constructively spell out how and what he would have done differently, but the more time we spend yelling back and forth as Liberal and Conservatives or Democrats and Republicans, the less time we are able to spend dealing with this threat open and honestly, as Americans.

Because this threat is REAL (revisionist history aside) and it MUST be dealt with! And that is why in the end, what Moore is doing is not Patriotic...it is reckless!

thomas144

07-12-2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by ItsGood_ItsGood

This is simply wrong. Every independent count done by media organizations from The Miami Herald to The New York Times to Time and Newsweek all reached the same conclusion: that Bush had more votes than Gore in Florida. Period. Why else would they have dropped the story immediately afterward?

[/B]

The NORC study that I believe Scarborough is referring to ("independent review of Florida's ballots") specifically found that 6 out of 9 recount scenarios they examined would have resulted in a Gore win. Perhaps Scarborough is referring to some other "independent review" but he doesn't indicate what exactly he is referring to, so I can't really check his assertions.

I don't have time to check all the other studies you refer to so perhaps you could give me an online link to the Miami Herald, New York Times, Time, and Newsweek articles you refer to, or at least tell me the date of the publication (if you can't quote from the original studies).

I don't know what you mean by "why else would they have dropped the story immediately afterward?"

thomas144

07-12-2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by spiderman

The problem is that Michael Moore is so blinded by ideology that he has completely lost his ability to think critically. Now to be honest, I have never, and will never watch this piece of crap F 9/11.

I would be really interested in your comments about this movie if you had actually seen it.

spiderman

07-12-2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by thomas144
I would be really interested in your comments about this movie if you had actually seen it.

Now I'll admit that maybe it isn't fair of me to be so biased against a film that I have never seen, but to my credit I have given him the benefit of the doubt in the past, and his work has been exactly what I predicted it would be...bias crap

As a general rule, I take anything anyone says with a grain of salt. I prefer to formulate my own opinions based up my own critical thinking. Therefore viewing a film like F 9/11 is a complete waste of my time.

For example, I have my own opinions about the whole 2000 election, and couldn't care less about Moore's take on any of it.

Oedipus Tex

07-12-2004, 11:25 AM

I saw Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, and F 9/11. I thought the first was excellent, MOSTLY fair, and entertaining.

"Bowling" was also very good, though obviously slanted and specifically designed to make a certain point about the NRA. Moore used cuts and editing to "create" quotes that simply didn't exist - he took portions of speeches, and portions of other speeches, and crowd reactions, and combined them to make statements seem much worse than they are.

F 9/11 is pure propaganda. It is still entertaining, but it is absolute drivel in terms of accuracy. No matter how you read the NORC study, Moore's statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. There are ties between the Bushes and the House of Saud. There are ties between the Bushes and the Bin Laden's. However, the Osama Bin Laden is an outcast from his family. They have disavowed his actions many, many times. If the connection bothers you so much, maybe you should go lock up Michael Bundy, Ted Bundy's younger brother.

At the same time, I think the American people should know of Bush's connections in the Middle East, and what the families' relationships are with one another. The problem with information like this is that people seem to have this utter inability to hear this without immediately thinking that everything is a conspiracy by teh power elite to keep down the little .

As far as "letting the Taliban get away," that's hogwash, too. The government was crushed and scattered. Is every last Taliban supported dead or imprisoned? No, not by a long shot. Whenever a government is deposed, supporters will linger and attempt to regain power, often by force. Americans seem to lack the perspective that the fact that the United States has the longest history of continuous peaceable transfer of power in the world. Historically, the Civil War should have been the rule, not the exception.

The problem, in my eyes, is that Moore uses the label "Documentary" for something that clearly isn't. Moore released this IN ORDER TO TRY AND INFLUENCE THE ELECTION - PERIOD. Making money is a nice side benefit, and I think he's also an attention whore, so that's nice, too.

Annihilus

07-12-2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Oedipus Tex
The problem, in my eyes, is that Moore uses the label "Documentary" for something that clearly isn't. Moore released this IN ORDER TO TRY AND INFLUENCE THE ELECTION - PERIOD. Making money is a nice side benefit, and I think he's also an attention whore, so that's nice, too.

As Troy Brown says - we've got bingo. A real documentary should make an effort to get at the real truth and in my opinion should not be predisposed to prove the director's point by cutting and pasting dialog, conversations, etc.

I've still gotta see F-9/11 and Roger & me, but I could see that right away in Columbine. I hate that people that can't think for themselves (or people that believe everything they watch) can actually watch these movies without being able to see both sides of the story.

I'd like to see Moore make a movie that didn't involve politics in any way to see what he's really capable of. (Again - haven't seen Roger & Me so I don't know if politics enters there or not...)

Ballbustah

07-12-2004, 04:27 PM

I trust Michael Moore about as much as I trust Rush Limbaugh.

All fanatics cannot be trusted because they subscribe to a one-sided view of a particular subject. How can you take the whole picture into account if you are blinded by a simplistic one-sided opinion? The answer is you cannot.

I admit I have always voted Republican since I became of voting age but regardless of the ridiculous Michael Moore fiasco… I most probably will vote democrat this time. I have lost confidence in George Bush. I perceive his religious stance as a barrier to advancing science and human medicine. I perceive his advisors as lacking of knowledge and unable to following the correct path for America.

I do not make my decision while watching a one-sided movie full of lies and deceit.
I make it while taking into account the path the country has taken over the last 3+ years.

Steve1

07-12-2004, 07:43 PM

I saw the movie Saturday night. It was purposely very anti-Bush, as I'm sure just about everybody knows. My basic opinion of the movie is this:

If you like Bush, or feel that you must always give the President the benefit of the doubt, and you watch the movie, you will probably say "that is just awful-that guy Micheal Moore is a real idiot-just who the hell does he think he is-he is so onesided, and nonpatriotic-why doesn't he just move out of the country, if he hates it so much".

On the other hand, if you think Bush is a blankbag, who lies constantly, and has done his best to send the USA to hell in a handbasket, and you watch this movie, it will work to make you hate Bush and Co. even more, the movie will simply add fuel to your fire, and you will probably say "Can you believe what an idiot and fabricator Bush is- he's even worse than I thought-Chaney cares about one thing only (well, two)...the money in his pocket, and power-he'll never win re-election, as long as people watch Fahrenheit 9/11- the real story".

Gee, I wonder where I sit in this argument?..................I definitely go with the latter.....uh, and you know what that means, bunky....Bush is a d-bag, big-time, and I just hope his day in power ends soon. Thanks for getting us into your well-planned war, with all it's acutrements, mr. prez (thank you so much, Jeb)

ItsGood_ItsGood

07-12-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by thomas144

I don't have time to check all the other studies you refer to so perhaps you could give me an online link to the Miami Herald, New York Times, Time, and Newsweek articles you refer to, or at least tell me the date of the publication (if you can't quote from the original studies).

With all respect I could, were it not for the fact that I'm a lazy, lazy man. Sorry, you'll just have to trust me.

I don't know what you mean by "why else would they have dropped the story immediately afterward?"

I meant that once the studies were completed, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream press, tepidly reported their findings and moved on. Their is no newsworthiness to the story "US President Was Actually Elected Legitimately" therefore, they dropped the story. If they had found to the contrary, we would have spent the last two years being deluged with news reports about "The Fraudulent Presidency" and editorials calling for his resignation.

As for the 6-of-9 study you mentioned, how many of those 6 ignore the absentee votes of our overseas military personnel, as Gore's lawsuit demanded? As it is, only Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Al Gore and apparently you fail to see that the system worked.

bideau

07-13-2004, 07:02 AM

I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to. I don't need Moore to tell me what a lying piece of crap president and administration we have in office.

Steve, you and I fall on the same side of the fence on this one. I'm certainly a liberal, but I'm not a registered democrat. I have occasionally voted for a republican when I felt he/she was the best candidate.

My dislike for Bush and today's conservatives is deep. It stems mostly from the fundamentalist ideologues that have taken over the party and have tried to push their morality on the entire country. Current conservative philosophies are direct attacks on issues that my family holds very dear.

Plain and simple, if I have to endure another four years, then so be it. But this country will not be better off until a new administration takes over.

That's my rant for the day. Now I'll find mroe pleasant ways to distract myself.

spiderman

07-13-2004, 07:54 AM

Moebius

07-13-2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by spiderman
People say to remove Bush, as if, he doesn't have to be replaced. All I'm saying is that 2 men (well 3 if you count Nader) are running for President and when I go into the booth in November I'm picking who I think is the better of the 2. I'm not falling into this "Bush must go" mindset that seems to be gripping so many Americans.

Sadly, that's the nature of our country these days. When something happens for the worse, the media, the government, and the citizens (most of them it seems) immediately look for a scapegoat to take the fall. It's been that way for many, many years, and I don't see any changes coming soon. Especially as the media now over dramatacizes everything. In what other country do you get all networks interrupted for hours of live broadcasts of OJ driving 40 mph down a freeway?

Was anyone really to blame for 9/11? Yeah, Bin Laden. Not Bush, not Gore, not the idiots in Florida who couldn't read a ballot, not even our latest scapegoat Saddam.

Our (sometimes too) proud country was dealt a staggering blow from the world of terrorism. But after standing proud and united for a while (which I was impressed with), we immediately fell back into "who to blame". Commissions to determine some guy should have read into some intel signs a little better. A giant finger pointing contest. Even Bush was guilty by trying to pin it on Hussein. - For the record, I believe the course of action in Iraq was the right one, I just feel they went about it the wrong way. -

Annihilus

07-13-2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Moebius
Was anyone really to blame for 9/11? Yeah, Bin Laden. Not Bush, not Gore, not the idiots in Florida who couldn't read a ballot, not even our latest scapegoat Saddam.

No arguments there. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way.

Our (sometimes too) proud country was dealt a staggering blow from the world of terrorism. But after standing proud and united for a while (which I was impressed with), we immediately fell back into "who to blame".

This is all too true. No country is perfect - and this is a shortcoming of ours that bugs the holy hell out of me. I'm not sure why people feel the need to blame the President for anything and everything wrong in American society - he's just a cog in the governmental machine. It's like the coach of a professional Baseball or Basketball team - gets too much crap for bad performance and too much praise for good performance.

bideau

07-13-2004, 10:14 AM

First, just to make clear where I stand. I hated Bush long before 9/11. I thought daddy Bush was a lousy President and I expected nothing better from his son. As I said earlier, a big part of my dislike is towards the far right wing which fills his administration. I believe that Bush has not made a single decision himself during this term. In my opinion, he's a puppet with Cheney and Rumsfeld calling the shots.

As far as how much responsibility a President has when things are good or bad, that's the way it's always been. The modern President has a lot of influence over the course of our nation both domestically and certainly overseas. Presidential powers have expanded in the last century to the point where congress has less of a say in matters than at any other point since the Civil War. And add the fact that both houses of congress are controlled by the conservatives, then the Bush administration essentially has a rubber stamp to do as they please. Maybe this administration doesn't deserve as much blame for 9/11, but certainly for what has happened since.

Hawg73

07-13-2004, 10:30 AM

Yes, terrorism made every single person in this country stand back and realize--the first time for many of us, that they are Americans and that freedom comes with a price.

The politicians, for a change, also thought of themselves as Americans first and democrats or republicans second and some real attempts at bipartisan cooperation were evident to pull this country together and keep it strong.

Now not even 3 years later the two parties seem more diametrically opposed than ever and we stand poised for an election that will redefine ugliness as each side readies a schmear campaign that in the end will only serve to undermine the confidence of the voters that there is anybody left that they can really believe in.

I would give my left nut for a candidate that eschewed all of that and let the other side ramble on like idiots if they wished.

Someone strong enough to run on their strengths and work towards unification and avoid division, no matter how much they may disagree with their opponents.

Both parties seem to have the moral fiber of tabloid journalists trying to get the latest scoop on Britney or the Olsen twins and as a concerned American--it makes me sick.

I sincerely hope the election won't end up as bad as it currently appears to me and I also hope that the membership here can continue to express it's views in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks and flame wars in a mini version of the polarization of the parties that many of us have allegiance to.

Annihilus

07-13-2004, 10:36 AM

bideau

07-13-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Hawg73
Yes, terrorism made every single person in this country stand back and realize--the first time for many of us, that they are Americans and that freedom comes with a price.

The politicians, for a change, also thought of themselves as Americans first and democrats or republicans second and some real attempts at bipartisan cooperation were evident to pull this country together and keep it strong.

Now not even 3 years later the two parties seem more diametrically opposed than ever and we stand poised for an election that will redefine ugliness as each side readies a schmear campaign that in the end will only serve to undermine the confidence of the voters that there is anybody left that they can really believe in.

I would give my left nut for a candidate that eschewed all of that and let the other side ramble on like idiots if they wished.

Someone strong enough to run on their strengths and work towards unification and avoid division, no matter how much they may disagree with their opponents.

Both parties seem to have the moral fiber of tabloid journalists trying to get the latest scoop on Britney or the Olsen twins and as a concerned American--it makes me sick.

I sincerely hope the election won't end up as bad as it currently appears to me and I also hope that the membership here can continue to express it's views in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks and flame wars in a mini version of the polarization of the parties that many of us have allegiance to.

I agree with alot of what you're saying here. I truly wish the Dems had come up with a better candidate than Kerry.

Unfortunately, negative campaigning works. As long as the voters in this country stand for it, it will continue. And simply whining about it won't change anything. The only way it'll change is if voters stay away from the candidate that employs it. But what are we supposed to do when both candidates resort to it.

And so far, I'm impressed that the level of debate has been civilized. We're all just expressing our opinion, a privilege that makes this a great country :thumb:

spiderman

07-13-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by bideau
First, just to make clear where I stand. I hated Bush long before 9/11. I thought daddy Bush was a lousy President and I expected nothing better from his son. As I said earlier, a big part of my dislike is towards the far right wing which fills his administration. I believe that Bush has not made a single decision himself during this term. In my opinion, he's a puppet with Cheney and Rumsfeld calling the shots.

As far as how much responsibility a President has when things are good or bad, that's the way it's always been. The modern President has a lot of influence over the course of our nation both domestically and certainly overseas. Presidential powers have expanded in the last century to the point where congress has less of a say in matters than at any other point since the Civil War. And add the fact that both houses of congress are controlled by the conservatives, then the Bush administration essentially has a rubber stamp to do as they please. Maybe this administration doesn't deserve as much blame for 9/11, but certainly for what has happened since.

The "he's a puppet" thing seems to have taken shape a few months ago. This is one of those things that people can just throw out there, because it can't be proved, or disproved, but it is a damaging allegation nonetheless. IMO it isn't a constructive criticism. People used to say this about Reagan as well.

I also disagree with your assertion that this administration is "far right wing". In fact, I think you'd find that most "right wingers" are frustrated with Bush for being too liberal.

My question to you is, Will you give Bush credit for the recovered economy?

Annihilus

07-13-2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by bideau
And so far, I'm impressed that the level of debate has been civilized. We're all just expressing our opinion, a privilege that makes this a great country :thumb:

No doubt, Bideau. Now if we started talking about women drivers, I'd probably get myself in trouble.

:D

*waits for the hailstorm...*

bideau

07-13-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by spiderman
The "he's a puppet" thing seems to have taken shape a few months ago. This is one of those things that people can just throw out there, because it can't be proved, or disproved, but it is a damaging allegation nonetheless. IMO it isn't a constructive criticism. People used to say this about Reagan as well.

I also disagree with your assertion that this administration is "far right wing". In fact, I think you'd find that most "right wingers" are frustrated with Bush for being too liberal.

My question to you is, Will you give Bush credit for the recovered economy?

Again, I've thought he was a puppet from the time he named Cheney as his running mate. When he filled his cabinet with leftovers from daddy's adminstration, that just confirmed it for me.

And no, I'm not giving him credit for this "recovery". First, the uptick in the economy is very tenuous. There are still corporations laying off, the market still hasn't recovered fully and wages (for non executives) still remain stagnant. Second, just to get things to level off took way too long.

I guess the bottom line is that I won't give him an inch. Some of it may be irrational, but that's the way I feel. I think I'll just step back now and let others a little more open minded carry on the discussion.

bideau

07-13-2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Annihilus
No doubt, Bideau. Now if we started talking about women drivers, I'd probably get myself in trouble.

:D

*waits for the hailstorm...*

Actually, if we start talking a women passengers (i.e. my wife), then I'm jumping in with guns blazing. :p

thomas144

07-13-2004, 11:37 AM

I have to say that I fail to grasp why people hate Bush so much, and I don't see these "examples" of how he has ruined this country.

Has Iraq gone well? I guess it depends on how you define well. Could we have done things differently? I guess, but what could we have done differently?

We could have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq. We could have built a consensus with more of our traditional allies before invading Iraq, if we really thought the reason the inspectors weren't finding WMDs was because the Iraqis were hiding them. I remember Robert Byrd, on the eve of the invasion, saying in the Senate, (words to the effect of) "maybe the reason France and Germany don't support us in this is because there isn't any imminent threat."

Everyone is saying that Bush has to go, well I would like to hear how Kerry is going to fix all of these so called problems. What is he going to do that is going to make everything "alright"?

If this country reelects Bush it will be telling the world that we approve of the invasion of Iraq. We have a real problem right now getting help to solve the mess in Iraq - I actually think what we will eventually see there will be some kind of radical islamic republic allied with Iran, which would be a bad thing but it would be better than seeing my (now 16-year-old) son get drafted in a couple of years to serve outside Fallujah.

Oedipus Tex

07-13-2004, 11:53 AM

I'd really like to hear some sort of PLAN from Kerry/Edwards.

You know, something more than "Bush sucks, and we have great hair."

thomas144

07-13-2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Oedipus Tex
I'd really like to hear some sort of PLAN from Kerry/Edwards.

You know, something more than "Bush sucks, and we have great hair."

I am sure you will hear more, although right now "Bush sucks and we have great hair" is probably enough for now.

Unfortunately, people probably wouldn't like it if he said "vote for me because France will like it" although I'm sure that's true.

I'm actually at the point where I care less and less about politics - I figure if the country wants to keep Bush in office, fine. It is certainly in my economic interest, and given a choice between living in a Christian or an Islamic theocracy I prefer a Christian one. I just hope they figure out some way for wealthy people to avoid getting drafted.

spiderman

07-13-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by bideau
I guess the bottom line is that I won't give him an inch. Some of it may be irrational, but that's the way I feel. I think I'll just step back now and let others a little more open minded carry on the discussion.

This basically proves the point I was trying to make. Everybody is too concerned with picking sides. It's Dems vs Repubs, and when all is said and done, we all lose.

splendid. :thumb:

dchester

07-13-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
[B]We could have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq. We could have built a consensus with more of our traditional allies before invading Iraq, if we really thought the reason the inspectors weren't finding WMDs was because the Iraqis were hiding them. I remember Robert Byrd, on the eve of the invasion, saying in the Senate, (words to the effect of) "maybe the reason France and Germany don't support us in this is because there isn't any imminent threat." I might take you a little more seriously if you could find someone to quote other than that ex-klansman Robert "KKK" Byrd. Another reason France and Germany didn't support us might be because that had big contracts signed with Saddam. Maybe another reason is that they are just cowards (at least France any ways).

I will say you have a good point about Bush waiting until Hans Blix had exhausted his capabilities with his UN inspections teams. According to Blix after about another 6 months of Saddam stonewalling him, he would have given up. However, I don't think for one moment that France and Germany would have sent in troops in any case.

If this country reelects Bush it will be telling the world that we approve of the invasion of Iraq. We have a real problem right now getting help to solve the mess in Iraq - I actually think what we will eventually see there will be some kind of radical islamic republic allied with Iran, which would be a bad thing but it would be better than seeing my (now 16-year-old) son get drafted in a couple of years to serve outside Fallujah. Personally I do support the invasion of Iraq, and I have a 14 year old son. Our prior policy of just passing resolutions in the UN (basically doing nothing) is one thing (among many, many others) that I think helped lead to that idiot Osama thinking 911 would be a good idea.

Something different needed to be done. You can certainly take issue with various things that Bush has done, but I am in basic agreement that the Middle East needs to be dealt with differently that what we've done thus far. The only real success we've had in the past is with the Peace plan (under Carter) when Israel and Egypt made peace. BTW, one of the main motivations was all the "foreign aide" (AKA bribe money) we paid, and continue to pay, both sides to keep that agreement. All the dictatorships, kingdoms, and fiefdoms in the Middle East are not working. It's a big mess, and 911 has made us view it differently.

An analogy (albeit not perfect one) is that after Japan attacked the US in WWII, the US perception of the world changed. We then decided that the best thing to do first was to attack Germany, even though they had not attacked us, and they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Bush knew afterr 911, that he would not be blamed for that, but he did know that he would be blamed for the next attack. I think he has made an honest attempt to keep that from happening (even if many mistakes were made along the way).

Kerry has until November to convince me:
1) That he stands for something (anything), and is willing to make principled, unpopular choices when he feels they are needed (ie. Bush doing the Iraq war).
2) That what he stands for is better than what Bush stands for.
3) His staff (cabinet and others) is going to be better than Bush's is and execute better than Bush's staff (this was the biggest problem that I thought Carter & Clinton had, an incompetant cabinet). BTW, I'm less than satisfied with Rumsfeld as well, although I have no problem with Cheney.

Enough of my rantings for now. As Bideau already said, this is a good debate, and everyone is to be commended for discussing these issue without having a flame war.
:thumb:
________
vaporite solo (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/vaporite-solo)

spiderman

07-13-2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
I have to say that I fail to grasp why people hate Bush so much, and I don't see these "examples" of how he has ruined this country.

Has Iraq gone well? I guess it depends on how you define well. Could we have done things differently? I guess, but what could we have done differently?

We could have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq. We could have built a consensus with more of our traditional allies before invading Iraq, if we really thought the reason the inspectors weren't finding WMDs was because the Iraqis were hiding them. I remember Robert Byrd, on the eve of the invasion, saying in the Senate, (words to the effect of) "maybe the reason France and Germany don't support us in this is because there isn't any imminent threat."

Everyone is saying that Bush has to go, well I would like to hear how Kerry is going to fix all of these so called problems. What is he going to do that is going to make everything "alright"?

If this country reelects Bush it will be telling the world that we approve of the invasion of Iraq. We have a real problem right now getting help to solve the mess in Iraq - I actually think what we will eventually see there will be some kind of radical islamic republic allied with Iran, which would be a bad thing but it would be better than seeing my (now 16-year-old) son get drafted in a couple of years to serve outside Fallujah.

I thought we had a concensus when the U.N. voted on 1441? I also thought we had a concensus when congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.

This is my problem. The time for discourse came and went. All Bush was asking, was that everyone do what they said they were going to do. Now, is he to blame for everyone basically going against their word?

As far as your point about the inspectors...ummm are you serious?

And as far as the future of Iraq...well that remains to be seen. I for one believe that the common Iraqi man wants much of the same things as the common American man, a good paying job, a home, and a family. Therefore it is important to keep the tyrants and maniacs out of power.

Look, I'm not a champion of Bush, or even a strong supporter of his, my point was that we need to all start thinking about what's best for our country, and stop these stupid political games. Because in the end we all lose.

thomas144

07-13-2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by spiderman

As far as your point about the inspectors...ummm are you serious?

yes, absolutely. people ridiculed the inspectors because they weren't finding any WMD. guess what? there weren't any!

And as far as the future of Iraq...well that remains to be seen. I for one believe that the common Iraqi man wants much of the same things as the common American man, a good paying job, a home, and a family. Therefore it is important to keep the tyrants and maniacs out of power.

It's true that the "common iraqi man" wants a good paying job, a home, and a family, but we are in Iraq to give them DEMOCRACY.

Michael Capuano (I think) said something recently about how people in his own congressional district don't care about democracy (I was trying to find the exact quote online but can't).

bideau

07-13-2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
This basically proves the point I was trying to make. Everybody is too concerned with picking sides. It's Dems vs Repubs, and when all is said and done, we all lose.

splendid. :thumb:

This doesn't prove anything. In my opinion, this country is better off if Bush is removed from office. I've stated some reasons for that opinion. I have more personal reasons that I prefer not to go into.

Politics is about picking sides. I'm an independent. I've voted republican in the past. I dislike the ideology of the current administration. Therefore, I'm voting for a democrat.

All I was saying in that last paragraph is that my mind is made up. There's nothing anyone can tell me that will change it.

Why does this mean we all lose?

BobKraftsCoozie

07-13-2004, 01:05 PM

I myself am NOT a supporter of Bush in any way. I do however believe that what has and will be achieved in Iraq will ultimately be better for the Iraqi people.

My problem is that I can't seem to grasp why this has all been needed.

In 2001, are biggest threat as a nation was thwarting the efforts of terrorists. Why Iraq?? A system was in place to keep weapon production in check and under a world microscope (Inspectors)
What was the iminent danger in Iraqthat couldn't wait until our own security needs were addressed.

Sadaam is out of Iraq, and yet I still need to be on full alert for a terror attack here from now until the election....or forever.

What has changed?

This all can't be pinned on George Bush, as our government process does not allow it. He is however, the face of the country, and it his messages that reach our neighbors throughout the world.

Personally, I'm feeling a little uncomfortabe with a President running around claiming "the bible is the only rule book I know", meanwhile a 3rd of the Muslim world views us as infidels.

thomas144

07-13-2004, 01:10 PM

An analogy (albeit not perfect one) is that after Japan attacked the US in WWII, the US perception of the world changed. We then decided that the best thing to do first was to attack Germany, even though they had not attacked us, and they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. For strategic reasons having to do with the defense of England, it made sense to deal with that threat first. FDR's speech to Congress on December 8th didn't mention Germany.

I don't have time to respond to this whole thread but I really recommend that people read Richard Clarke's book for an excellent history of our relations with the middle east.

One factoid from that book that I find fascinating is that Osama Bin Laden offered to the Saudi's to liberate Kuwait from Saddam when Saddam annexed Kuwait, but the Saudi's accepted our help instead.

dropKickMurphy

07-13-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
The other Scarborough comment that hangs low on the tree, so to speak, is his comment about how the Taliban didn't get away. We could debate semantics about what that means, of course the Taliban is not formally in charge of Afghanistan (and not sending representatives to Texas on business trips anymore as shown in Fahrenheit 9/11) but they are apparently a very active force in Afghanistan today

spiderman

07-13-2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
Originally posted by spiderman

As far as your point about the inspectors...ummm are you serious?

yes, absolutely. people ridiculed the inspectors because they weren't finding any WMD. guess what? there weren't any!

And as far as the future of Iraq...well that remains to be seen. I for one believe that the common Iraqi man wants much of the same things as the common American man, a good paying job, a home, and a family. Therefore it is important to keep the tyrants and maniacs out of power.

It's true that the "common iraqi man" wants a good paying job, a home, and a family, but we are in Iraq to give them DEMOCRACY.

Michael Capuano (I think) said something recently about how people in his own congressional district don't care about democracy (I was trying to find the exact quote online but can't).

I don't think it's fair for you to say that there were no WMDs. Nobody knows that for sure, and you certainly can't fault the entire world for thinking they were there with Saddam acting the way he was.

Please try to remember what was going on with the inspection teams. They were thrown out in 1998 and only allowed back in because Saddam felt threatened by the US. The whole thing turned into a charade and it would have been absurd, and embarrassing for the UN to allow it to continue.

Also, we went to Iraq to rid the world, and the Iraqi people of a "Monster". Maybe it is idealistic for us to think democracy will work in Iraq, but it is a noble and good cause.

And finally, I'm glad Capuano has morons in his district...good for them. :thumb:

Moebius

07-13-2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Hawg73
I would give my left nut for a candidate that eschewed all of that and let the other side ramble on like idiots if they wished.

Someone strong enough to run on their strengths and work towards unification and avoid division, no matter how much they may disagree with their opponents.

Both parties seem to have the moral fiber of tabloid journalists trying to get the latest scoop on Britney or the Olsen twins and as a concerned American--it makes me sick.

All I can say to that is "DAVID PALMER FOR PRESIDENT". For those who don't watch, it's the president character played by Dennis Haysbert in 24. The writers managed to create the perfect (IMHO) president with him. Someone who doesn't stoop to the BS, who's not afraid to make the tough decisions and stand accountable for them, and refuses to play the political game of coverup.

Hawg, you and I are in complete agreement on the state of the candidates. I'm so tired of all the bs mudslinging, and people digging for every last little controversial scrap somebody did in the past.

Right now, about the only thing that would impress me is some candidate to stand up and say:

"I'm running for President. I did drugs when I was in college, and I DID inhale. I had an affair during my first marriage which led to divorce, and I attended a flag burning rally in 1972.
Now that you know what I've done, let me tell you what I'd like to do...."

I sincerely hope the election won't end up as bad as it currently appears to me and I also hope that the membership here can continue to express it's views in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks and flame wars in a mini version of the polarization of the parties that many of us have allegiance to.

Indeed. And I just like to add that anyone who doesn't agree with my opinion is a stupid, worthless putz, and a poster child for retro-active abortion. :D

spiderman

07-13-2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by bideau
This doesn't prove anything. In my opinion, this country is better off if Bush is removed from office. I've stated some reasons for that opinion. I have more personal reasons that I prefer not to go into.

Politics is about picking sides. I'm an independent. I've voted republican in the past. I dislike the ideology of the current administration. Therefore, I'm voting for a democrat.

All I was saying in that last paragraph is that my mind is made up. There's nothing anyone can tell me that will change it.

Why does this mean we all lose?

Because you're refusing to admit that Bush can, and may, get some things right.

I didn't vote for Clinton either time, but I realize that he did some things right, and that he had some good policies. I didn't run around saying that he was Hitler and refuse to listen to anyone defend him.

Look, I have no idea what your personal reasons are, and honestly, if this is going to hit too close to home for you, then I just assume that we agree to disagree.

I just want everyone ON BOTH SIDES to keep an open mind, think critically, give credit where credit is due, and move towards creating a better America and world. I hate to see any leader get blasted day after day after day by the people sitting on the opposite side of the fence, many of whom said the same things he's saying 6 years ago.

:)

bideau

07-13-2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Moebius
All I can say to that is "DAVID PALMER FOR PRESIDENT". For those who don't watch, it's the president character played by Dennis Haysbert in 24. The writers managed to create the perfect (IMHO) president with him. Someone who doesn't stoop to the BS, who's not afraid to make the tough decisions and stand accountable for them, and refuses to play the political game of coverup.

Now David Palmer is a guy I would vote for. :thumb:

BTW, "24" is my favorite show.

Moebius

07-13-2004, 01:43 PM

I keep thinking we need to somehow kill our current Two Party system, which has become incredibly partisan in the past few decades.

The only problem is, I'm not sure a no party system would work either.

All I know is I'm frustrated enough at the current situation, I'm leaning towards exercising my right not to vote. I'm not happy with either candidate, and not too thrilled at choosing the lesser of two evils for president.

dchester

07-13-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by bideau
This doesn't prove anything. In my opinion, this country is better off if Bush is removed from office. I've stated some reasons for that opinion. I have more personal reasons that I prefer not to go into.

Politics is about picking sides. I'm an independent. I've voted republican in the past. I dislike the ideology of the current administration. Therefore, I'm voting for a democrat.

All I was saying in that last paragraph is that my mind is made up. There's nothing anyone can tell me that will change it.

Why does this mean we all lose? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with taking a stand and picking sides. What does bother me (more in Congress than anywhere else), is the means some people utilize to achieve ther goals. It's more about character assasination, than winning (or losing) a debate on it merits. I'd love to see term limits for the Congress.

I'm also concerned that propaganda films are now being presented as documentaries. But it doesn't bother me if you've made up your mind already, and I think I can guess why. The only thing I would say (if I'm guessing correctly) is that the President has no role (other than running his mouth) in a Constitutional amendment. That is up to the Congress and the States.
________
Toyota P transmission history (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_P_transmission)

spiderman

07-13-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by dchester
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with taking a stand and picking sides. What does bother me (more in Congress than anywhere else), is the means some people utilize to achieve ther goals. It's more about character assasination, than winning (or losing) a debate on it merits. I'd love to see term limits for the Congress.

I'm also concerned that propaganda films are now being presented as documentaries. But it doesn't bother me if you've made up your mind already, and I think I can guess why. The only thing I would say (if I'm guessing correctly) is that the President has no role (other than running his mouth) in a Constitutional amendment. That is up to the Congress and the States.

I think Bideau and I are kind of arguing 2 different points.

Mine is: You have Dems on one side saying, we're right they're wrong...and you have Repubs on the other side saying we're right they're wrong...thus resulting in gridlock and we all lose.

For once, I would love to see one side say, "You know what that's a pretty good idea, how 'bout we tweak it a little and there you go"

The parties are too interested in WINNING and gaining POWER. As a result, we as a country lose.

I agree that when it comes to voting you have to pick a candidate, and totally understand that Bideau doesn't approve of the current administration.

What I'm trying to say is that our country is becoming too polarized, and we'd better start compromising for the good of our country soon, or else we are all screwed.

Oedipus Tex

07-13-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Moebius
I keep thinking we need to somehow kill our current Two Party system, which has become incredibly partisan in the past few decades.

The only problem is, I'm not sure a no party system would work either.
Or a multi-party system, for that matter. For all its flaws, a two party system at least ensures that one candidate will get, say, 40+ percent of the vote. Most of the time, you'll even get a majority (of those who vote, at least).

Not so in countries with many popular parties. 35% or more is like a mandate.All I know is I'm frustrated enough at the current situation, I'm leaning towards exercising my right not to vote. I'm not happy with either candidate, and not too thrilled at choosing the lesser of two evils for president. [/B]
Isn't every vote a lesser of two evils? I mean, when was the last time you had a candidate that you pretty much agreed with straight down the line, and were excited about voting for?

Now, I'll be the first to agree that this election is particularly awful in that regard. Both guys are stupid, kniving, power-hungry monkeys.

Someone, please do something to earn my vote...

Undertaker #59

07-13-2004, 02:20 PM

As far as I am concerned, both parties are pretty much the same.

One wants a big government, the other wants a bigger government.

:4321: to both.

Annihilus

07-13-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
One wants a big government, the other wants a bigger government.

LOL - that's gotta be one of the more astute observations in this thread yet - to the point and accurate.

Mark_Henderson

07-13-2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
I think Bideau and I are kind of arguing 2 different points.

Mine is: You have Dems on one side saying, we're right they're wrong...and you have Repubs on the other side saying we're right they're wrong...thus resulting in gridlock and we all lose.

For once, I would love to see one side say, "You know what that's a pretty good idea, how 'bout we tweak it a little and there you go"

The parties are too interested in WINNING and gaining POWER. As a result, we as a country lose.

I agree that when it comes to voting you have to pick a candidate, and totally understand that Bideau doesn't approve of the current administration.

What I'm trying to say is that our country is becoming too polarized, and we'd better start compromising for the good of our country soon, or else we are all screwed.

I think most people would agree with this sentiment, though I'm pretty sure that this polarized/character assasination dynamic has existed throughout much of U.S. political history and it hasn't done us in yet.

I'm a Democrat, so admittedly I'm biased, but I think our "uniter not a divider" President has done more than his share to ratchet up the current level of polarization. He has consistently taken the evangelical, right wing stance on issues. Clinton may have been a liberal deep down, but he governed as a moderate. That's why he was re-elected with broad support.

Both sides are owned by special interests (that's why I voted for John McCain in the '00 primary), but I'm not sure they're equal in fueling the polarization. What takes the cake, IMO, is the Congress spending hundreds of millions to investigate a 10 year old land deal and then using that pretext to IMPEACH the President over a blow job -- to the daily drumbeat of dozens of AM talk radio hosts.

If you're a conservative who saw that for the absurd partisan circus it was, then I guess it's o.k. to spout about Moore's movie, though I'd recommend seeing it first.

thomas144

07-13-2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
I think Bideau and I are kind of arguing 2 different points.

Mine is: You have Dems on one side saying, we're right they're wrong...and you have Repubs on the other side saying we're right they're wrong...thus resulting in gridlock and we all lose.

For once, I would love to see one side say, "You know what that's a pretty good idea, how 'bout we tweak it a little and there you go"

The parties are too interested in WINNING and gaining POWER. As a result, we as a country lose.

I agree that when it comes to voting you have to pick a candidate, and totally understand that Bideau doesn't approve of the current administration.

What I'm trying to say is that our country is becoming too polarized, and we'd better start compromising for the good of our country soon, or else we are all screwed.

The election and electorate is (or has) evolved into a culture war, which I find very interesting.

I heard or read Clinton say recently that if you thought the changes that occurred in the 60s were a good thing you are probably a democrat and if you thought the changes that occurred in the 60s were a bad thing you are probably a republican.

People seem to either think Bush is a good guy trying to do the right thing or a clueless moron seaking to destroy civilization. It's like they root for a politician or a political party like they root for their football team, not because of what they do or say or appear to believe but merely because it's the team they've decided to root for. And then there's about half the country that doesn't follow football at all.

spiderman

07-13-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I think most people would agree with this sentiment, though I'm pretty sure that this polarized/character assasination dynamic has existed throughout much of U.S. political history and it hasn't done us in yet.

I'm a Democrat, so admittedly I'm biased, but I think our "uniter not a divider" President has done more than his share to ratchet up the current level of polarization. He has consistently taken the evangelical, right wing stance on issues. Clinton may have been a liberal deep down, but he governed as a moderate. That's why he was re-elected with broad support.

Both sides are owned by special interests (that's why I voted for John McCain in the '00 primary), but I'm not sure they're equal in fueling the polarization. What takes the cake, IMO, is the Congress spending hundreds of millions to investigate a 10 year old land deal and then using that pretext to IMPEACH the President over a blow job -- to the daily drumbeat of dozens of AM talk radio hosts.

If you're a conservative who saw that for the absurd partisan circus it was, then I guess it's o.k. to spout about Moore's movie, though I'd recommend seeing it first.

I've already explained why I won't see Moore's movie.

Interesting that you place all of the fault for the partisan divide on Bush's shoulders and none on the Dems.

Interesting take on the Lewinsky affair, I definitely don't share your view I'm sure, but I've been down that road many times before, and don't feel like doing it again.

.:D

spiderman

07-13-2004, 02:56 PM

dchester

07-13-2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
The election and electorate is (or has) evolved into a culture war, which I find very interesting.

I heard or read Clinton say recently that if you thought the changes that occurred in the 60s were a good thing you are probably a democrat and if you thought the changes that occurred in the 60s were a bad thing you are probably a republican. I wonder what that makes me? I liked some of the changes and disliked others.

People seem to either think Bush is a good guy trying to do the right thing or a clueless moron seaking to destroy civilization. It's like they root for a politician or a political party like they root for their football team, not because of what they do or say or appear to believe but merely because it's the team they've decided to root for. And then there's about half the country that doesn't follow football at all. That is it, in a nutshell. People try to view things in simplistic Black (good) or White (evil) :D   when most of the time it's complicated shades of gray.

Do I think Bush is trying to do the right thing?   (Yes, for the most part).

Do I think he is a moron?   (Let's just say that I don't think he's above average, on that mark) BTW, I never considered Reagan a rocket scientist, but he did OK. Carter was supposed to be brilliant, but he didn't do too well.

Possibly one reason I am not too quick to condemn someone in a leadership position, is because I know what it is like to have to make decisions when you do not have all of the data that you would like to have. A lot of times it comes down to knowing who to trust and when (and it helps to have good people to begin with).

Now Bush didn't pick Tenet, so I can't blame him for that. But if the CIA Director goes to the President and says the case for WMDs is a slam dunk, what is he supposed to think. In any case, I think I know why Tenet resigned.
________
magic flight launch box (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/magic-flight-launch-box)

Ballbustah

07-13-2004, 04:05 PM

I don't think that Bush is very bright.
He may rely on his advisors too much instead of making up his own mind.

I'm going to write-in Porky Pig for president.

Oedipus Tex

07-13-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I don't think that Bush is very bright.
He may rely on his advisors too much instead of making up his own mind.

I'm going to write-in Porky Pig for president.
I think he's about average. It's amazing to watch the difference in him now as opposed to when he was running for governor of Texas. He shredded his opposition in debates, had a lot of great points on complex issues, the works. He looked like a star on the rise.

Now he comes across as a bumbling moron. I think he's lost his confidence, frankly - and he may have a learning disability that hinders his quick recall, thus bumbling some phrases and such.

And on the contrary, I don't think he listens to advisors too much and doesn't make up his own mind, I think his flaw is that he makes up his mind on a first impression, and then looks to his advisors ONLY for support of that position.

Moebius

07-13-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Oedipus Tex
I think he's about average. It's amazing to watch the difference in him now as opposed to when he was running for governor of Texas. He shredded his opposition in debates, had a lot of great points on complex issues, the works. He looked like a star on the rise.

Now he comes across as a bumbling moron. I think he's lost his confidence, frankly - and he may have a learning disability that hinders his quick recall, thus bumbling some phrases and such.

And on the contrary, I don't think he listens to advisors too much and doesn't make up his own mind, I think his flaw is that he makes up his mind on a first impression, and then looks to his advisors ONLY for support of that position.

I think his biggest problem is his speech writers. I remember one press conference after 9/11. Bush had all his speeches laid out, the various expected quesitons and prepared answers. Then, about mid way through the conference, he sighed, closed the binder, and started speaking from his gut. That was probably the best public appearance I've seen from him. It seems if he has prepared material, he just can't deliver it right, but if he shoots from the hip, he's quite good.

Ballbustah

07-13-2004, 04:21 PM

Either way it doesn't say much for his ability to lead.

Hawg73

07-13-2004, 04:25 PM

I had some reservations about Bush, but voted for him anyway. I disliked him less than I did Al Gore.

Now, I like Bush even less and am completely underwhelmed by Kerry. No idea yet which way I'm going.

What's Ross Perot doing these days?

Oedipus Tex

07-13-2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Hawg73
What's Ross Perot doing these days?
Last I saw, he was running south, waving his arms around and screaming about a "big sucking sound."

Annihilus

07-13-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Hawg73
What's Ross Perot doing these days?

I loved that old coot, and will admit to having voted for him the first time around.

"Can I finish? Can I finish?"

dchester

07-13-2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Hawg73
What's Ross Perot doing these days? When Perot initially got in the race, I thought I might vote for him. But when he dropped out, and then got back in, I could never take him seriously after that. I always had this thought of him having a temper tamtrum, after the first time he submitted a budget to Congress, and then they ignore it like they usually do. Can you picture him, "That's it. I'm outa here."
:p
________
vaporite solo (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/vaporite-solo)

Mark_Henderson

07-13-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
I've already explained why I won't see Moore's movie.

Interesting that you place all of the fault for the partisan divide on Bush's shoulders and none on the Dems.

Interesting take on the Lewinsky affair, I definitely don't share your view I'm sure, but I've been down that road many times before, and don't feel like doing it again.

.:D

Interesting how you disagree with me, yet have absolutely nothing to say.

thomas144

07-13-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I think most people would agree with this sentiment, though I'm pretty sure that this polarized/character assasination dynamic has existed throughout much of U.S. political history and it hasn't done us in yet.

Yes, 200 years ago politicians fought duels to settle these arguments. Then we had the Civil War.

One of my relatives was supposedly the last man to die in an organized duel conducted in the United States. He was a congressman from New Hampshire who was killed by a congressman from Kentucky (I think). Hawthorne wrote about him, and I have a link to the text here:

Jonathan Cilley (http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/cily.html)

I would welcome a split of the country into at least two nations. The blue states can have all blonde movie stars, a constitution that prohibits gay marriage, and the NFC.

Mark_Henderson

07-13-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by dchester
When Perot initially got in the race, I thought I might vote for him. But when he dropped out, and then got back in, I could never take him seriously after that. I always had this thought of him having a temper tamtrum, after the first time he submitted a budget to Congress, and then they ignore it like they usually do. Can you picture him, "That's it. I'm outa here."
:p

The two party system does seem to have a stranglehold on things, but if Ross was saner, he might just have pulled it off. He got 20% of the vote even after dropping out, claiming there was a plot to portray his daughter as a lesbian, and selecting a shell shocked VP.

Tiger_69

07-13-2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by dchester
Rather than just me saying that Michael Moore is a lying sack of shiite, I thought i'd post this article from MSNBC that pretty much says the same thing, albeit more eloquently than I could. This is eloquent enough for me.

Prometheus441

07-13-2004, 10:30 PM

F-9/11 was brillant for what it is,a propaganda film.As an unbiased
examination of fact relating to 9/11,it is almost completely dribble.That being said,the newest AP poll shows Bush with a 4% lead over Kerry and Edwards (it was taken after Edwards was named) and shows Nader with 4%.If these numbers stay with the Bush laeding any Nader with anymore than 4%,it becomes an almost mathamatical impossibilty for Kerry to win.Its also interesting to note that when a canidate names his VP,it almost always gives him a 8-10 % in the polls and hardly any polls have shown that.The Boston Globe poll only showed Kerry taking a 6%
lead by naming Kerry.

Mark_Henderson

07-13-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Prometheus441
F-9/11 was brillant for what it is,a propaganda film.As an unbiased
examination of fact relating to 9/11,it is almost completely dribble.That being said,the newest AP poll shows Bush with a 4% lead over Kerry and Edwards (it was taken after Edwards was named) and shows Nader with 4%.If these numbers stay with the Bush laeding any Nader with anymore than 4%,it becomes an almost mathamatical impossibilty for Kerry to win.Its also interesting to note that when a canidate names his VP,it almost always gives him a 8-10 % in the polls and hardly any polls have shown that.The Boston Globe poll only showed Kerry taking a 6%
lead by naming Kerry.

Good post, though I think you meant to say "complete drivel". "Complete dribble" would be a movie about the Globetrotters.

You can't judge much from the polls at this point. Dukakis had a 17 point lead after he got nominated. I think the difference is 0that Bush, Sr. was largely undefined other than being Reagan's VP, and Bush/Cheney aren't going to change their image much.

Nader probably isn't going to do any better than he did in 2000. If that's the case, Kerry needs to carry all the Gore states and pick up one other, even as small as NH (which Bush carried by a very small margin), and he wins. If he picks up a bigger state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, he can afford to lose a smaller state that Gore carried, like New Mexico. This seems doable, but the defining moments haven't happened yet.

Tiger_69

07-13-2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Prometheus441
F-9/11 was brillant for what it is,a propaganda film.As an unbiased examination of fact relating to 9/11,it is almost completely drivel. Another issue that I had with/about Moore (posted on another message board) is him encouraging children to sneak in to see it. I just saw this as him trying to spew his venom on young vulnerable minds. You know he believes his word is gospel and he's trying to get as many followers as possible.

spiderman

07-14-2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Interesting how you disagree with me, yet have absolutely nothing to say.

Well, you've obviously already got everything figured out...so why waste my time???

Spinal Tap

07-14-2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I think most people would agree with this sentiment, though I'm pretty sure that this polarized/character assasination dynamic has existed throughout much of U.S. political history and it hasn't done us in yet.

I'm a Democrat, so admittedly I'm biased, but I think our "uniter not a divider" President has done more than his share to ratchet up the current level of polarization. He has consistently taken the evangelical, right wing stance on issues. Clinton may have been a liberal deep down, but he governed as a moderate. That's why he was re-elected with broad support.

Both sides are owned by special interests (that's why I voted for John McCain in the '00 primary), but I'm not sure they're equal in fueling the polarization. What takes the cake, IMO, is the Congress spending hundreds of millions to investigate a 10 year old land deal and then using that pretext to IMPEACH the President over a blow job -- to the daily drumbeat of dozens of AM talk radio hosts.

If you're a conservative who saw that for the absurd partisan circus it was, then I guess it's o.k. to spout about Moore's movie, though I'd recommend seeing it first.

I have to jump in here for a second. Clinton was not impeached because he got a blow job. He was impeached because he lied about it to a grand jury under oath. Most liberals don't understand that, they just use the "impeached over a freakin blow job" excuse. I don't care that he got his d**k sucked in the oval office. Hell, I'd like to do the same thing. But I'm not the FREAKING PRESIDENT!!! On the surface, it's silly to chastise president clinton for getting his knob shined. But it's NOT silly to chastise him about lying under oath and committing purgury (sp).

Moebius

07-14-2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
I have to jump in here for a second. Clinton was not impeached because he got a blow job. He was impeached because he lied about it to a grand jury under oath. Most liberals don't understand that, they just use the "impeached over a freakin blow job" excuse. I don't care that he got his d**k sucked in the oval office. Hell, I'd like to do the same thing. But I'm not the FREAKING PRESIDENT!!! On the surface, it's silly to chastise president clinton for getting his knob shined. But it's NOT silly to chastise him about lying under oath and committing purgury (sp).

That's the stuff I'm tired of. No politician out there, it seems, is willing to just stand up and admit that (s)he's human. I didn't care much for Clinton overall, but he did some decent things. I wasn't bothered by the fact that he was going for a little office nookie (though his tastes were a bit lacking). I did mind that he tried to cover it up (just like Whitewater) and portray himself as the victim. To me, had he just said "Yes, I made a mistake and let my libido drive", I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with it.

Kind of the same with Bush. "This man is a known threat to our country. We should have finished the job 10 years ago when he tried to assinate my father. I intend to." Though of course this was a bigger deal than a little fun with cigars.

I hate seeing all the spin doctor crap. It's like our government is populated by used car salesmen. Congressmen who use expense money (ie. our taxes) to pay for a car to drive them 3 blocks, then try and say why it's best for the country that they do so. Presidents who try to cover up every decision they make. Senators answering more to big money corps than their constituants.

Ok, breathe....innnnnn.....ouuuuuuut..... Veins receeding, pulse returning to normal, anger subsiding.... Stepping down from soapbox.

Mark_Henderson

07-14-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
I have to jump in here for a second. Clinton was not impeached because he got a blow job. He was impeached because he lied about it to a grand jury under oath. Most liberals don't understand that, they just use the "impeached over a freakin blow job" excuse. I don't care that he got his d**k sucked in the oval office. Hell, I'd like to do the same thing. But I'm not the FREAKING PRESIDENT!!! On the surface, it's silly to chastise president clinton for getting his knob shined. But it's NOT silly to chastise him about lying under oath and committing purgury (sp).

I'm not expecting an NFL message board to be a bastion of liberalism, or a representative sample, but there's nothing wrong with some good debate and I do need to counter this.

I haven't parsed Clinton's grand jury testimony to see where the "lie" occurred. Technically, he didn't "have sex with that woman" -- no one would term giving head as losing your virginity.

But, the real question is why was the President of the United States before a grand jury answering questions about the specifics of when and how he got blown?

The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate a 10 year old land deal and after spending 100's of millions of dollars of our money, found NOTHING actionable. There aren't many politicians who don't have some questionable sweetheart deals associated with them along the way.

The fact is, the public was bored with the land deal details. But, when Starr found out about the sex stuff, he knew he had some dynamite that would get a lot of press. This wasn't about any elevated legal principle, it was about partisan character assasination.

A grand jury hearing is simply a preliminary step for evidence collection to determine whether there's grounds to proceed with a trial. What convictions in a court of law stemmed from Clinton's grand jury testimony? When in history has someone's grand jury testimony ever been released to air on national television?

Do some people who criticize Bush go overboard? Sure. But, they largely criticize him on policies he has enacted while serving as President -- fair game. The criticism of Clinton's policies had no resonance. And, yes, they did impeach him for getting his d*ck sucked. If there had been legal maneuvering over something this trivial that didn't involve sex, the public wouldn't have cared enough to pay attention.

Spinal Tap

07-14-2004, 02:49 PM

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Clinton blow-job issue. I don't have the energy to argue with a liberal, I just don't have it right now.

I'm not a staunch republican. In fact, I consider myself a bit right of the middle. I'm not a blind Bush supporter that just makes excuses for everything he's done that people criticize him for. I do, however, have a major problem with all of the Bush bashing that goes on nowadays. I think people need to have a hell of a lot more respect for our president, whether they like him or not. Maybe I'm just old school, but I was always taught to at least respect those in authority, even if you don't like them.

The U.S. is in a situation now that it has NEVER been in before in it's entire history. This president has had to deal with this situation and make decisions that NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever had to make. He's made numerous mistakes along the way, but he's also made some ballsy moves that turned out to be great.

Bush haters were born that way. No matter what he does, they will be there to criticize him for it. I think Bush has a good heart and his intentions are sincere. Call me gullible if you would like to, but I never had that feeling in any of the 8 years that Clinton was in office.

I'm rambling..............

spiderman

07-14-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I'm not expecting an NFL message board to be a bastion of liberalism, or a representative sample, but there's nothing wrong with some good debate and I do need to counter this.

I haven't parsed Clinton's grand jury testimony to see where the "lie" occurred. Technically, he didn't "have sex with that woman" -- no one would term giving head as losing your virginity.

But, the real question is why was the President of the United States before a grand jury answering questions about the specifics of when and how he got blown?

The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate a 10 year old land deal and after spending 100's of millions of dollars of our money, found NOTHING actionable. There aren't many politicians who don't have some questionable sweetheart deals associated with them along the way.

The fact is, the public was bored with the land deal details. But, when Starr found out about the sex stuff, he knew he had some dynamite that would get a lot of press. This wasn't about any elevated legal principle, it was about partisan character assasination.

A grand jury hearing is simply a preliminary step for evidence collection to determine whether there's grounds to proceed with a trial. What convictions in a court of law stemmed from Clinton's grand jury testimony? When in history has someone's grand jury testimony ever been released to air on national television?

Do some people who criticize Bush go overboard? Sure. But, they largely criticize him on policies he has enacted while serving as President -- fair game. The criticism of Clinton's policies had no resonance. And, yes, they did impeach him for getting his d*ck sucked. If there had been legal maneuvering over something this trivial that didn't involve sex, the public wouldn't have cared enough to pay attention.

AHHHH!!!

It's the SPIN MACHINE I'm having flashbacks of the 90s!!!:banghead:

bideau

07-14-2004, 03:06 PM

It's obvious that very few minds, if any, are going to be changed. That's why I've been trying to avoid this thread for the past couple of days.

But, I just want to say to Mark_Henderson that I thought your post was very well written. You and I are on the same side of the debate here. I just didn't want you to think you were out there by yourself. The right wingers like to call it spin control, which is ironic since they're the masters of spin.

Now back to girlie pics, music and Pats.

thomas144

07-14-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
The U.S. is in a situation now that it has NEVER been in before in it's entire history. This president has had to deal with this situation and make decisions that NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever had to make. He's made numerous mistakes along the way, but he's also made some ballsy moves that turned out to be great.

I don't really want to perpetuate this thread, but I am curious to know what "ballsy moves that turned out to be great" you are referring to. Maybe I lost the context; are we talking about George W. Bush?

Mark_Henderson

07-14-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by spiderman
AHHHH!!!

It's the SPIN MACHINE I'm having flashbacks of the 90s!!!:banghead:

Yet another substantive response. You had it right -- why do you even bother? You might find that, "no, you are" works too -- it's even more concise.

Spinal Tap

07-14-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't really want to perpetuate this thread, but I am curious to know what "ballsy moves that turned out to be great" you are referring to. Maybe I lost the context; are we talking about George W. Bush?

The War on Terror is one hell of a ballsy move. I don't really care who likes the U.S. and who doesn't. It's the president's job to protect us and he's done a damn fine job of doing so. Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Queda and did nothing..................................hence 9/11/01. Clinton had NO balls, Bush does.

spiderman

07-14-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Yet another substantive response. You had it right -- why do you even bother? You might find that, "no, you are" works too -- it's even more concise.

Or, know you are but what am I...

Look Mark, I have no desire to re-hash the whole Lewinsky fiasco.

IMO, Clinton lied and the rest of what you wrote is just blah blah blah.

Somehow I've been branded a right winger in this thread. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make. If I say that, IMO Bush had the best of intentions in Iraq, then someone like you brands me a Neocon and starts spouting off the party line. If you think that somehow makes you superior to me...then here's a gold star.:thumb:

If you knew me, you would know that I don't claim to have it all figured out. I have refrained from engaging you in debate because you strike me as a typical Democrat who has a prepared party line answer for everything, and spend little time thinking openly and honestly about human events. The evidence I use for this is when you said, "I'm a democrat so naturally I'm biased". That was all I needed to hear.

If that offends you, my apologies. o:-)

thomas144

07-14-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
The War on Terror is one hell of a ballsy move. I don't really care who likes the U.S. and who doesn't. It's the president's job to protect us and he's done a damn fine job of doing so. Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Queda and did nothing..................................hence 9/11/01. Clinton had NO balls, Bush does.

Oh I see. So you think Clinton would have done nothing in response to 9/11?

Spinal Tap

07-14-2004, 03:36 PM

he didn't do anything in response to the USS Cole. am i to assume that he would have had a change of philosophy after 9/11??? did he do anything in 1993 when they failed to take the towers down??? would they have actually have had to succeed in killing thousands before he put his cock back in his pants and did something about it???

spiderman

07-14-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't really want to perpetuate this thread, but I am curious to know what "ballsy moves that turned out to be great" you are referring to. Maybe I lost the context; are we talking about George W. Bush?

I know what you mean...when he said "ballsy move" I automatically assumed he was talking about Clinton too. :D

spiderman

07-14-2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
he didn't do anything in response to the USS Cole. am i to assume that he would have had a change of philosophy after 9/11??? did he do anything in 1993 when they failed to take the towers down??? would they have actually have had to succeed in killing thousands before he put his cock back in his pants and did something about it???

I will answer this as honestly as I can. Hopefully I don't come across too right wing.

To be fair, Clinton's philosophy was to make terrorism a law enforcement issue. They (the FBI I believe) did find those responsible for the 1st tower bombings, and they are still in prison....I think?

Based on this, I honestly have no idea what Clinton would have done in response to 9/11 since all the perpetrators died in the crash.

thomas144

07-14-2004, 04:35 PM

LOS ANGELES (July 14) - Billionaire Donald Trump, famous for telling contestants "You're Fired" on his hit show "The Apprentice,"' is not happy with the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq war.

In an interview for the August edition of Esquire Magazine to be published on Friday, the magazine says he makes it clear the administration would never keep a job with him.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country?," Trump said.

"C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have," Trump said in excerpts of the interview released in advance to Reuters.

"The Apprentice" was one of NBC's biggest hits last season.

"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!," Trump said.

Trump also proclaims he would be "tougher" on terrorism.

"Bin Laden would have been caught long ago. Tell me, how is it possible that we can't find a guy who's six-foot-six and supposedly needs a dialysis machine? Can you explain that one to me? We have all our energies focused on one place, where they shouldn't be focused," he said.

07-14-04 12:14 EDT

Flagg the Wanderer

07-14-2004, 04:36 PM

Donald Trump, foriegn policy guru.

thomas144

07-14-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Donald Trump, foriegn policy guru.

Not to mention, like John Kerry, another traitor to his class.

Billionaires for Bush! (http://www.billionairesforbush.com)

Annihilus

07-14-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
Not to mention, like John Kerry, another traitor to his class.

Billionaires for Bush! (http://www.billionairesforbush.com)

What I don't get is why celebrities that have nothing to do with the governmental process think that the rest of America gives a rat's ass about what they think.

Flagg the Wanderer

07-14-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by thomas144
Not to mention, like John Kerry, another traitor to his class.

Billionaires for Bush! (http://www.billionairesforbush.com)
Traitor to his class? Kerry isn't even IN his own class, he just gets a woody for rich chicks!

Starting in highschool, actually, when he was in some preppy band that spent time in the studio on funds fronted by his rich girlfriend. Then wife #1 is worth what, $50 mil? Wife #2 is worth $5-700 mil?

He's moving up in the world.

But that's all very much to the side of who I will vote for or against in the upcoming election.

Oh, and by the way, Democrats FAR outshoot the Republicans in terms of donations of $1 million or more, while Republicans did much better on small donations. I wish I could remember the link for that...

There may never have been a more widely believed falsehood than that the Republicans are the party of the rich, while the Democrats are for the poor and downtrodden.

thomas144

07-14-2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer

Oh, and by the way, Democrats FAR outshoot the Republicans in terms of donations of $1 million or more, while Republicans did much better on small donations. I wish I could remember the link for that...

There may never have been a more widely believed falsehood than that the Republicans are the party of the rich, while the Democrats are for the poor and downtrodden.

yeah, no kidding. democrats just want to raise your taxes, take away your guns, and let gay people get married. and they don't really believe in god.

Flagg the Wanderer

07-15-2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by thomas144
yeah, no kidding. democrats just want to raise your taxes, take away your guns, and let gay people get married. and they don't really believe in god.
Geez, I'm sorry, I thought we might have a substantive conversation. My mistake.

I'm not a Republican, by the way. I have no idea what you'd classify my political beliefs as, but Republican ain't it.

Moebius

07-15-2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by thomas144
yeah, no kidding. democrats just want to raise your taxes, take away your guns, and let gay people get married. and they don't really believe in god.

Another good example of why the 2 party system really bites. Not all Republicans or Democrats follow their party line completely, but they probably all do WAY more than they should.

Ok, stepping to the soapbox again....

All the talk about Democrats helping the middle class, and Republicans favoring the rich and everything is all semantics. Politicians are out to help themselves. Politics is a business and these guys are just trying to make money. Wanna see some real changes in the Government? Put Congress and Senate on the same Social Security and medical plans as we have. Take away all the expense account perks. Remove public campaign funding so they can't be bought by big dollar corporations. Then put term limits in place for all government members. Maybe then you might see a few honest politicians. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, these guys are out to make a paycheck, and like a used car salesman, are going to say whatever it takes to get that check.

Undertaker #59

07-20-2004, 11:28 AM

Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino

Mon Jul 19, 6:54 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Singer Linda Ronstadt was thrown out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas on the weekend after dedicating a song to liberal film maker Michael Moore and his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a casino spokeswoman said on Monday.

Ronstadt, who had been hired for a one-show engagement Saturday night at the Las Vegas Strip casino, dedicated a performance of "Desperado" to Moore and his controversial documentary, which criticizes President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon.

"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.

About a quarter of the 4,500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.

Before her concert, Ronstadt had laughingly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she hoped that the casino performance would be her last.

"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she was quoted as telling the newspaper.

A statement issued by the Aladdin said Ronstadt had been "escorted out of the hotel" just after her performance and said the performer would "not be welcomed back."

"Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse political views," the casino said.

Ronstadt was not immediately available for comment.