View Full Version : Farenheit 9/11
Ga flyguy04
07-21-04, 04:14 AM
I would like to know if anyone has seen the film yet. I personally have not seen it but have talked to several who have. While some report it to be "patriotic" and "eye opening" others have said that the film is very one sided, the only talk to soldiers that oppose bush instead of those who are for bush. I also hear that the film is just attacking bush, taking excerpts of addresses and meetings to make him out to be a complete fool. let me know what everyone thinks on this controversial film.
Why would I give someone who has such a low opinion of me one single dime? Haven't seen it and never will!
Saw it and thought it was worth the money. I also agree that it was one-sided and I would argue doesn't merit to be called a documentary but rather commentary, documentary style. In addition, editing can make anyone look stupid but it doesn't help that Pres. Bush's frequent verbal gaffs offer plenty of material for Moore to play with. I think for those who have questions about why we went to Iraq, it is worth seeing. I may not agree with all of Moore's theories but there is enough there that I do agree with which serves to counter what many in our country have taken as fact (aka: Iraq's involvement in 9/11 so let's go to war). The scene with Bush reading to kids as we were being attacked speaks volumes...I would not have wanted his job that day.
TheEndlessEnigma
07-21-04, 11:16 AM
gaflyguy it is definitely one sided and a direct attack.
TangledUp
07-21-04, 01:19 PM
OK - I paid to rent "Bowling for Columbine" and I took offense to most of it. I do enjoy yelling at the TV though, so it was worth the $3 pay-per-view fee. That's definately the last $3 I'll spend on Moore. If you enjoy Moore as an artist, fine, that he is. If you view him as a credible source of news and information that is fair, please, please refrain from inhaling so much.
Also, read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.
It has a great chapter entitled "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness" which details how the US TV media (cbs,nbc,abc, etc..) ran 71 nightly news stories pretaining to homeless persons in 1990 (Bush Sr. admin) but in 1995 after Clinton had taken office, the number of homeless-related stories on those same networks dropped to only nine.
Hmm http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
TangledUp
------------------
Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.
- Henry David Thoreau
[This message has been edited by TangledUp (edited 07-21-2004).]
Moore has called this film an op-ed piece, so even he doesn't hold it out to be a "credible source of news." And while I haven't seen the film yet, I would feel safe in saying that Moore is probably at least as fair as the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh, who are and have been on the airwaves every day now for years.
Josh Barnett
07-21-04, 03:12 PM
Before even knowing what the movie was truly going to be about, I saw Moore on one of those "tabloid shows" one night while switching through channels.
I decided then and there that this man's stupidity rose above anything I had seen. Why would I, like Tom Landreth, want to spend my money to see something that totally goes against what I believe?
I honestly can't see why anyone who is for Bush would want to see it, just by seeing the "previews" anyone with enough sense to turn the TV on could see that it wasn't patriotic, but patronizing. IMHO... just my 2 cents...
Joshua Barnett
------------------
Back Porch Fly Company
Joshua Barnett, Tier
1-706-354-8500 http://joshbarnett.cjb.net
caddisfly08@yahoo.com
[This message has been edited by Josh Barnett (edited 07-21-2004).]
SlckTrck
07-21-04, 03:43 PM
I do not beleive the administration ever said Iraq was directly linked to 9/11, they said they were linked to Al queada (sp?) There is a difference. Iraq being linked to 9/11 is what the media has reported to be fact not the administration.
It is movies and rehtoric like this that contorts the public view of the truth.
I still have not seen it and will never pay to. Besides, Moore said himself that he would not care if anyone downloaded a copy for free off the internet. He is documented on TV saying this to a reporter.
Lets be strightforward about this. These are not theories or opinions he has in his movies. There are a few but most are just lies.
Doa little research ont he net and there are hundreds of pages documenting these misleading statement.
Check out www.moorelies.com (http://www.moorelies.com)
------------------
SlckTrck
I sure hope Heaven has a trout stream.
[This message has been edited by SlckTrck (edited 07-21-2004).]
In the Resolution for War http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
This is included in the reason for the Iraq war as stated in the Resolution authorizing our attack.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
One can draw their own conclusion
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 07-21-2004).]
JOHNKIES
07-21-04, 05:03 PM
JeffG what are we going to do with you? Just when there was this fine drift of conservative denial underway about who said what when, you have to muddy things up with the Congressional Record. Have you no respect for politics, man?
But in a more serious vein, I worry hearing old Dubya talking now about Iran as a "haven for terrorists", "building nukes" and all manner of evil. Are we going to invade them too? Will the same rationale that took us to Baghdad take us to Tehran as well? When he couldn't catch Bin Laden (and where has the "liberal" media been on that topic?) and he can't seem to find a way out of Iraq, maybe he needs another distraction before November. ---JCK---
Osama Bin Laden lest we forget(and johnkies reminded me of this tidbit)
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
Do we have enough reservists and mercenaries to invade Iran?
Besides, George is tired of playing war president. If you can believe him.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003176
fishmonger
07-21-04, 06:30 PM
Jeff,
Instead of "one drawing their own conclusion" from that quote, how about reading what the words ACTUALLY say, and what they DON'T say. They do NOT say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. You just wish that they did, so that you could blame Bush. Sorry, but it's just not there.
Grady,
I have never heard Hannity or Rush claim to be fair, they claim to be right, and honest. O'Reilly does claim to be fair, and he does (to me) appear to try to be fair. BTW, I do not agree with these guys on some things (relief for you, I know). All 3 are pompous blowhards. Hannity is often simplistic, self-righteous, and repetitive, O'Reilly can be a flat out jerk. Rush is incredible in his political insight, but I could do without the "talent on loan from God" routine. Moore is just a low rent hack.
JohnKies,
Those are indeed 2 pretty big "manners of evil". Which one of those 2 scenarios seems to you to be an acceptable action from a fundamentalist Islamic state? W will undoubtedly "save" the invasion of Iran for his 2nd term, unless Israel takes care of the nuke problem themselves, which I would bet money on. Also, we haven't got Osama YET, but we will, sooner or later. Just because some event hasn't happened yet doesn't make the process leading up to that event a failure. It just means that the process isn't complete. It's not like Osama has a shingle hanging out in Peshawar, with a link to Mapquest.
FM
lone_angler
07-21-04, 06:43 PM
I don't see the denial your talking about. The resolution states exactley what was mentioned before. It says al qaida was responsible, and we know they had ties with Iraq. I didn't see anything that remotley stated Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Personaly, I wouldn't worry about Tehran, Isreal will deal with them long before we get the stomachs too. And no, we don't have enough military to deal with Iran, thanks to old cold war promises and the massive shrinkage of the military during the 90's.
On the original thread, it's sad so many politically inept people will see this movie and believe it. There are bold and outright lies about the current administration, and its beacause of this type of media that people are still willing to say the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 for cause to invade Iraq. Or spout such absurdities as Bush was AWOL from the Nat Gaurd as fact.
Moore is scary, almost as scary as Hannity or Limbauagh. But I would think people would be hard pressed to find instances where Hannity presented bald faced lies as facts.....continually. This wouldn't be near as bad if Moore didn't already have the reputation for bending facts (or breaking them) to fit them into his preconcieved notions about how things are.
Hey Fishmonger, we were typing our post at the same time. wasn't trying to copy or anything.......I like the way you think http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by lone_angler (edited 07-21-2004).]
BLACK KNIGHT
07-21-04, 07:57 PM
LA beat me to it. It's pretty clear. Al- Qaeda attacked the US. Iraq and Al-Qaeda had some sort of relationship. Iraq was thought to still posess WMD. Al-Qaeda would like to get WMD's to attack us. I saw nothing about complicity with 9/11 attacks.
I think a logical person could connect the dots and forsee a clear danger Iraq would supply those weapons.
I think based on 12 years of defiance to UN resolutions and shooting at our flyboys in the UN no fly zones all the time, for 12 years, and the associated cost of deployments and such, Hussein had to go based solely on that alone.
P.S. Moore is a chucklehead.
[This message has been edited by BLACK KNIGHT (edited 07-21-2004).]
No question that he had to go, but why then? What was the urgency, especially with Bin Laden still at large? What about Kim Jun Il in N. Korea flaunting nukes in our face, defying the UN, etc? Why doesn't the logic follow through there? I don't question the need for Saddam to have taken a hike but I think we had bigger priorities than to foot the huge majority of an increasingly costly war that is promoting more terrorism than it is preventing. Pres. Bush should have taken his dad's approach and spread the cost (in lives and $) to the rest of the world, who also stood to benefit from getting rid of Saddam. With paying for SS so my parents can retire and the huge debt this war has incurred, I might as well sign my check over to the government.
fishmonger
07-21-04, 09:22 PM
Likewise, LA. And BK, too!
An additional thought: Why, Jeff, are you impuning W for something from the "Congressional Record"? I don't believe that the office of President is part of the legislative branch of our government. Note that the resolution passed 296 - 133 in the House, and 77 - 23 in the Senate (information NOT posted on the left-wing website that you linked to), so please don't tell us that it was rammed through by a W-led Republican majority.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 07-21-2004).]
Rumsfeld said during the pre-war hype that we are perfectly capable of fighting major wars on 2-3 fronts. Perhaps he didn't forsee getting 140,000 troops bogged down in Iraq for god knows how may years.
Go here and look around for numerous examples of lies and distortions by Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh, as well as others.
http://mediamatters.org/
Go here to see how our intelligence people repeatedly warned the White House that the case for war was weak.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Here, in a letter to Congress, Bush explicitly connects Iraq to 9-11
"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html
Seem to me the politically inept are those who are swallowing the spin that the CIA is to blame for the mess we're in.
fishmonger
07-21-04, 09:38 PM
MBA,
If not then, when? AFTER Saddam had nukes? Make no mistake, he was after nuclear weapons. Obviously, if North Korea has nukes, it changes the equation. What if we went after NK, and they nuked Seoul and Tokyo? How much luck would we have getting other country's support then? This is EXACTLY why Iran can not be allowed to get their own nukes, and likewise, why it made great sense to get Saddam before he got them. Posession of nukes by these rogue nations increases by orders of magnitude the security problems for the world.
I doubt that Social Security is enabling your parents to retire, although Dems love for them to think so. Don't fall for that crap. It certainly won't enable you and me to retire when our time comes.
FM
fishmonger
07-21-04, 09:54 PM
It is interesting that libertarian and conservative talk show hosts are accused of being liars by liberals, when their format includes instant, unedited conversation and exchange of ideas, and who are all huge commercial successes, whereas liberal attempts at the same format are a pathetic flop, where the hosts have to buy their airtime or be financed by liberal-thinking millionaires, or produce films where no rebuttal or discussion is possible. Why, exactly, is that?
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 07-21-2004).]
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 07-21-2004).]
"If not then, when? AFTER Saddam had nukes? Make no mistake, he was after nuclear weapons."
How do you know this, FM. We have found no evidence of nuclear weapons or even a program to build them. And even if he was afer them, how long would it take to build them and deploy them or pass them to a terrorist group? Years? So what WAS the big hurry to invade? Bush had succceeded in getting inspectors back in (of course when they didn't find any WMD in a few weeks the Republicans ridiculed them as inept. He who laughs last...)But Bush pulled them out so he could invade. Do you honestly believe that Bush looked for a way to avoid sending our troops into harms way?
BLACK KNIGHT
07-21-04, 10:08 PM
There was a program in place as far back as in '81, when the Israelis did the world a favor and took out that capability, for the time being. I guess the leopard must have changed it's spots, according to you.
OK, let me follow this. Spend years trying to develop one of the most expensive and closely-guarded secrets in the world, which would guarantee you a seat at the negotiating table with the most powerful nations, which are now intimidated from invading you because of the potential repercussions. Then "give" it to terrorists (that oppose your government and oppose you ideologically) so they can start wars with countries that you are not friends with but are no where near your border.
What we have shown the world is develop nukes; otherwise we’ll come and kick your butt if we don't like you anymore (remember we supported Saddam against Iran like we did Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan). We have more links to him than Iraq ever did.
I'm not saying he changed his spots. I'm saying he was defanged, and we knew it.
fishmonger
07-22-04, 09:22 AM
Harboring terrorists, or proliferating advanced weapons technology to those that do, is hardly "we don't like you anymore".
FM
Lets see, president of the united states moves towards war, and creates a war resolution that is then passed by congress. Now if you are the president would you not be the commander in chief? If you are commander in chief then wouldnt you be respondible for the war resolution?
I mean he IS the war president right? He is the one who stated the case to the American People, and then to the UN and the World.... so I guess now congress is the one who officially started the war on bad intelligence not the president
( see how everything can be twisted to ones liking?? and hey I didnt write the resolution, and as I stated, you can draw your own conclusions. )
Let me requote myself here...and be a bit cynical
But since everytime since certain memebers of the leadership team has mentioned 9/11 and Iraq they have tied the two together. Yes they never stated that they are one in the same, but they have stated it enough that the majority of americans find that Iraq and 9/11 are directly related. Now we can break this down to terrorist ties to regimes that may/may not be responsbile for meeting in Prague, or providing logistics, or had discussions with one another... but the admin has tried for so long to create an image of ties without stating those ties that eventually my mind has given in to those ties....
again, all depends on definitions ...
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 07-22-2004).]
fishmonger
07-22-04, 10:04 AM
Jeff,
Congress created the Resolution, the President signed it, in that order. And yes, I agree, you are certainly a good twister...
As Rocketroy says "Back into my hole...", this is pointless.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 07-22-2004).]
SlckTrck
07-22-04, 12:14 PM
Grady,
I do not see how that letter you posted explicitly links Iraq to Al Queada. It infers Iraq provided aid to the Terroist organization that did the attack and that is why it was nessesary to liberate Iraq.
I have nto to thsi date seen anything that says "explicitly" Iraq was involved diorectly in the 9/11 attack. again, thsi is meadia spin to create contreversy.
------------------
SlckTrck
I sure hope Heaven has a trout stream.
[This message has been edited by SlckTrck (edited 07-22-2004).]
Having just watched the press conference by the 9/11 Commission, I am thankfull that our NGTO members did not serve on this commission.
fishmonger
07-22-04, 02:19 PM
Porque? (Why?)
FM
Hey I couldve used the paycheck, and the fishing in the bay is pretty good right now, so couldve conducted interviews over poppers, stripers, and cold beers at Deep Creek.
Bet we couldve gotten to the bottom quickly ( not the bay, but the investigation....hahah)
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 07-22-2004).]
TheEndlessEnigma
07-22-04, 03:05 PM
nah i disagree on that tom ..... i think a handful of trained monkeys could have handled this crap better lol
honestly .... i am glad we left iraq .... and we should bring everyone home ..... let them figure it out .... should have never been there doing what we did in the first place. listen to me im a republican and i say this. personally i am tired of us being the world police when we are saving all these people all over and we have homeless and hungry here. our problems are not there. they are here on our own soil.
my question of the day is
Why are we so quick to save the rest of the world when we are too busy destroynig ours?
TheEndlessEnigma
07-22-04, 03:07 PM
nah i disagree on that tom ..... i think a handful of trained monkeys could have handled this crap better lol
honestly .... i am glad we left iraq .... and we should bring everyone home ..... let them figure it out .... should have never been there doing what we did in the first place. listen to me im a republican and i say this. personally i am tired of us being the world police when we are saving all these people all over and we have homeless and hungry here. our problems are not there. they are here on our own soil.
my question of the day is
Why are we so quick to save the rest of the world when we are too busy destroynig ours?
lone_angler
07-23-04, 01:01 PM
Who would you rather be the policeman of the world? Bottom line it this, someone has to do it, you think the UN is up to the task?
Fact is, almost all mid-east countries are failed states. They're governments are based on religious ideoligy, they don't value "secular" education, they torture and decimate they're citizens. What is the greatest threat to these type of regimes? Democracy. If they weren't so tererrified of it, there woulndn't be near the effort to destroy Iraqs iterim gov't. A true decomacracy in an Arab nation posses a much more serious threat to the power structure of other mid-east countries than we do.
Truth is, we won't know weather Iraq will be a success for some time. If democracy solidifies there, the impact on the region should be noticable.
So what is the answer? Should we have invavaded Iraq. A country that had not lived up to its cease fire agreement from '91, had been acting hostily towards our pilots in the no fly zone, and had already been found possessing weapons that violated its UN sanctions. A country that we know was giving money to, and training terrorist. A country that almost every leader in the free world is quoted calling them a threat to the world and in possesion of WMD's(including our wonder boy Kerry).
If we had not invaded Iraq, what should we have done to stabalize the region. Send more troops Afghanistan to find bin Laden? The fact that it took like 8 years to find Eric Rudolph in an area not even a 10th of size of Afghanistan should prove that more people aren't going to find him. Maybe we should use UN sanctions against countries that harbor terrorist, we saw how successful that was against Iraq. It's not like options were everywhere. Maybe we should listen to Kerry and include "the rest of the world", i.e. France and Germany. I mean hey, the Oil for Food program would have never been such a success without the involvement of France and Germany. Heck, why don't we let them be the policemen of the world, they seem to know whats best for everybody else, and like to act that they are still superpowers. Never mind the fact that when they where super powers, they both tried to conquer the world.
Here's a question, when's the last time one country invaded another, and then proceeded to hand it back over to it's citizens? Unfortunatley, we don't live in a vacuum, and problems over there are our problems here. This war wil be fought, it can be there or here. Would you rather the terrorist make that decision?
And Grady, your link was cute. Too bad you can't find one that can be honest and show lies from the left with the same enthusiasm.
Moores movie is for the most part based on outright lies and creative editing, and it's being heralded as one of the great political commentaries. What a load of whale sqeeze. It's more of the same dribble we've heard since the 2000 election. Bush is evil, Bush is a liar, Bush is a crook.
"Truth is, we won't know weather Iraq will be a success for some time. If democracy solidifies there, the impact on the region should be noticable."
Why is this so? I've never understood the neo-con claim that a stable deomcracy in Iraq will somehow magically transfom and stabilize the region. I mean, I understand how they think it would work, but my question is 'why should they be believed?' After all, nothing we were told about invading Iraq has proven true, so how smart are these guys?
Here's a question, when's the last time one country invaded another, and then proceeded to hand it back over to it's citizens?
US did it to the Philipines, Cuba(ROugh Riders and war vs spain remember the main cept for gitmo), Haiti (sort of ending a humanitarian crisis), Panama(gotta get rid of the stooge we propped up for so long) and Grenada(gotta save those Doctors!) . Marshall Islands ( which we kept), Okinawa (my dad was there for a while, said beautiful spot)
Granted we had "military presence" for a bit, but we did hand them over..well most of em.
(sorry in smart __ mode lately)
OH, technically we invaded Germany, Italy, and Japan since we had to go in to those countries to end the terror.. so depends on definition of invasion....
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 07-23-2004).]
streamKAT
07-23-04, 03:09 PM
Hey Enigma....
Are not the vast majority of homeless and hungry in that situation due to there own poor decisions ?
I mean really, there is no system that can make someone who does not want to develop skills to get suitable employment, get them. there is plenty of work available, lotsa folks just don't want to or claim that it dosen't pay enough.
The fir survive, the weak go hungry.... kinda like a trout population..... it's perfectly natural. YOU could always give them some $$ on your own though. ;)
streamKAT
07-23-04, 03:11 PM
Michale Moore is a fat elitist liar. He is also a rich capitalist and a total hypocrite.
He rides around in a limo and treats his employees like kaka.
Anyone who can't see this is in denial.
streamKAT
07-23-04, 03:15 PM
And yes, anyone who has some understanding of middle eastern & muslim history, politics and culture can understand the dramatic implications of a successful secular democracry smack dab in the middle of the region.
slightly grayling
07-23-04, 03:35 PM
An interesting e-mail I received today....slightly off topic, but related....
Subject: An interesting observation
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore=13.2 Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.."
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
streamKAT
07-23-04, 04:00 PM
Amen Grayling !
Thanks for the post.... not something you would find mentioned in F 9/11 or at moveon.org...
Of course, some republican stuffed those documents down Berger's pants.
streamKAT
07-23-04, 04:05 PM
ANd I'm sorry .... Bogged down !!!????
We have been quite militarily effective in Iraq. In fact we have set more than one historical military precedent in our operations there. Calcualte the casulaty rate for yourself; it is quite low; the bulk of our kids that go will come back unscathed.
Study some gosh darn military history and learn some tactical science and it's pretty obvious.
Well, how is some government dependence all bad. I mean having nice roads is great, having an armed force is great, etc.. hahaha
But seriously, who right now is growing the size of the gvt? And who passed the HC initiative that is just a huge govt monstrosity? WHo is increasing the amount of gvt oversight into our day to day lives? who is imposing the will of the people thru govt programs on society? ( I think the liberals arent in power right now, but I will have to double check my facts i guess)
Both sides can point fingers, and I know as a liberal I am personally responsible for every whim/woe/problem with godless america, but sometime the mirror reflects other images too...
(and about taxes and paying/not paying, wouldnt it be nice if the corporations that have govt contracts actually paid taxes or heck even be a US based HQ company? I mean I know that is an evil concept, but why should my tax money goin to the bottom line of those companies? Just like the roadless initiative. Couldnt one speculate that allowing logging companies into nat'l forests to log for their own profits in a way is stealing my tax dollars that trully own that land? )
Us **** liberals are just ruining everything... man what am i to do?
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 07-23-2004).]
streamKAT
07-23-04, 04:22 PM
Since i've been so 'right-wing' ;)
I must say the roadless intitative was agood idea and I don't like W's folks messing with it.
Nor do I like the way W lets his Power CO. buddies step around environmental regulation.
Foriegn policy ? I like W.
The Joseph Olson thing is a fraud.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
But since we're on the topic of Red States vs Blue States, isn't it odd that, generally, the states that went for Bush receive more federal tax dollars than Gore states. Given the rhetoric from the conservatives about welfare, taxes, etc., you would think it would be reversed. Take a look at the map here.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_09/002155.php
lone_angler
07-24-04, 08:48 AM
Jeffg, I agree with you about Bush increasing the size of gov't. It's something I am not pleased at all about when it comes to the Bush admin. Unfortunatley, the Dems are about to nominate someone who's basic appeal is that he isn't Bush. Pathetic little platform. If the dems could have stomached putting up a moderate, they very likely would have gotten my vote.
Heres an interesting fact. Corporations don't pay taxes..... individuals do. Thats why I'm such a huge fan of the flat tax, corporate taxes start to become a non issue.
Grady, why won't we know if Iraq is a succeess for som time? The same reasons that it took quite some time for Lincoln to be remembered as the great president he was. Don't forget he was considered a tyrant by alot of the general pop. during the war. He had the audacity to lock people up without constitutional oversight, he got involved in a war that was considered illegal and was just plain poorly run, then he had to fight tooth and nail to defeat McClellan for his second term. And yet today, we look at him as the greatest president our country has had.
How many members of our current government were screaming that Reagan was going to get us killed in a nuclear arms buildup with the USSR. How many of them did not see the "big picture". If we had listened to poeple like Kerry during the 80's, it's quite likely we would still be dealing with them today.
And Jeff, you proved my point about countries being invaded and handed back over. In the history of the world, we are the only country that has done that......ever.
As stated in earlier post, democracy in Iraq probably will transform the region, the idea of free thought spreads like a disease and doesn't go away. If living free wasn't what it was, we wouldn't be flooded with illegal immigrants, now would we.
Grady said:
"But since we're on the topic of Red States vs Blue States, isn't it odd that, generally, the states that went for Bush receive more federal tax dollars than Gore states."
[snip]
"Take a look at the map here." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_09/002155.php
Hi Grady,
I don't know if your statement is true or not but the map you referenced doesn't address that issue (total tax dollars received) at all. Do you have any other sources?
BTW, here's another take on the map and article that you posted:
http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/000434.html
Later,
Johnny
------------------
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
fishmonger
07-24-04, 04:27 PM
Just to clarify a point: the US is not a Democracy, but a Representative Republic, where our representatives are elected in a democratic process (voting). We do not have majority rule, which we should all be thankful for. The founding fathers were very careful NOT to set up a democracy.
FM
lone wolf
07-25-04, 09:43 AM
fishmonger,
You are correct that we have a democratic republic form of government. If we had a "pure" democracy, Al Gore would be president. I wonder if that will stir some interest. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
TheEndlessEnigma
07-25-04, 12:38 PM
now if i aperson is homeless they have made nothing but bad decisions and dont know anything???? that is somewhat true but not always. and i was not really speaking of that anyway.
streamKAT
07-28-04, 05:23 PM
What is it that the government can or should do for homeless people ?
Free rent ? Why don't I get free rent/mortgage ?
Seems like it should be the domain of private charity and individuals. If there is not enough help in that form, then the problem is the personal ethics of the members of a society not the governance of such.
There is some self interest in the equasion.
People with no other option are a bit more inclined to do home invasions and car jackings. I'm not sure that Ashcroft's Police State is the better option, nor is an over-romanticized, wild west, every shoots everybody situation.
streamKAT
07-29-04, 01:05 PM
Not if homeowners and drivers have guns and are willing to shoot back more often.
That is the main difference between me and 'liberalism' .... He has no other choice so I better consider 'why' he is jacking me ? Is it MY fault ? I have known plenty of poor folks who would NEVER do such a thing. It seems kinda degrading to honorable poor folks to imply that conditions dictate whether or not criminal behaviuor is warranted.
I'd rather not be concerned with that and give him a .45 caliber reason why he SHOULDN't do that, regardless of his misfortune.
Most folks who have heard 'shots fired in anger' would have preferred not to.
streamKAT
07-29-04, 04:23 PM
The implication is that anyone who has ever been in a firefight becomes a passivist....
And that is simply not true.
JOHNKIES
07-30-04, 08:24 AM
I finally got to see the movie for which this thread is titled. Documentary? Not really but a "documentary style" commentary on the current administration. Is it biased? No more so than if Rush Limbaugh were to produce a "documentary" on the Clinton years. And very Limbaugh-like, there are few conclusions presented, but events and actions are presented as questions from which the viewer is expected to draw the right (left?) conclusion.
For myself, the element of greatest impact was watching the full seven minutes of Bush in the classroom after having been told of the second plane hitting the Tower. I saw his eyes and the man had no clue what to do next. No handlers came in to tell him what to do so he just sat there. When the second plane hit, most of us knew immediately that we were under attack. Hearing about this on the news and the 30 second sound/video bites is one thing, watching it unfold is quite another. I don't think Bush is a bad person, but I cannot see him as a leader.
Not quite. The statement is that it is easy to have faith in hardware that one has never used, nor has ever had a need to use. Somethings romanticise a little better than they live.
Unless one goes to the front door with gun drawn every time, it doesn't do any good. First usually wins in the short run.
Things may be worse in Iraq than the administration and much of the media are letting on. There are reports trickling out that large areas of Iraq are no longer controlled by the Coalition and Iraqi forces.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/9296480.htm?&1c
streamKAT
08-05-04, 11:18 AM
Bob M,
Perhaps we agree on that really, many who DO have 'hardware' would be better off without it.
I don't feel that is neccesarily the majority, however.
streamKAT
08-05-04, 11:43 AM
Bob M,
Are you pro gun-control ?
I have no problem with yourt assertion until the govt. begins to tell me that I can't have a gun and that it's for my own good. Not gonna happen. I don't need govt. to decide what is for my own good or not.
And I don't have to be hunter or targetshooter either.... If I want to own a gun specifically to kill bad-guys should the need arise .... that is my right.
For me, gun control is achieved with two hands and lots of practice.
Lot's of folks, guys usually, confuse guns with other 'equipment' and believe that they are massively effective. For self defense, they aren’t particularly useful. There is the odd chance that if someone is breaking into your home at night, that you might get enough warning to use it. If they knock on your door, you won't. If they come up to you on the street, you won’t. If they approach you in your car at an intersection or a gas station, you won’t. Maybe that’s why these are the bad guys’ preferred approaches. They work.
A few years ago there was a survey of Florida inmates that had been convicted of violent crimes. Two of the questions they asked were 1.) If you are breaking into a home at night, which would you prefer to face; a.) an alert armed homeowner or b.) a dog? 2.) Why? The answers were overwhelmingly that they would prefer to face the homeowner and the reason being is that dogs don't hesitate. Of course the dog doesn't have to worry about shooting his wife, kids, or neighbors, so it's not a fair comparison.
If having a handgun keeps the boogeyman away at night, then it is fine with me. It would be a little more useful to understand what guns can and can't do, and then act accordingly. If you are not a young black male, then the odds are that the boogeyman is about all you have to worry about. Of course, if more people have fewer options, that could change.
Bob Murrah
streamKAT
08-05-04, 02:30 PM
I doubt the inmates were being honest and would safely bet that the vast majority never faced an armed opponent; if they broke in my house they would feel differenly
If a stranger knocks on my door I answer with a locked & loaded handgun in my waist behind me, with my hand on it; there is also sufficient range between myself and the stranger to draw and fire in the event of a threateniong move.
It's all about training & preparation.
An accessible locked & loaded handgun in the center console is accessible in time to kill a would be jacker.....it's been done more than once. You have to have sufficient muzzle velocity and mass to penetrate the windshield to ice the bad guy however. ( A hot .45 ACP works)
I still assert that if more violent bad guys died in the act it would be a deterrent.
If guys dying was effective deterrent, then we would not have neighborhoods with perennially high murder rates. Rather than a deterrent, the mechanism more closely resembles 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap.’
slightly grayling
08-05-04, 03:32 PM
It sure as heck cuts down on repeat offenders! Honestly, most crime statistics point towards a high percentage of violent crimes being committed by repeat offenders. I can't help but believe over time it would make an impact (pun intended)...
streamKAT
08-05-04, 04:04 PM
Peace through fire superiority !
Saw the movie last night. I second Johnkies. To see the "deer in the headlights" look on Bush's face after he was told the nation was under attack is startling. And he sat there for seven long minutes while the attack unfolded. Really unforgivable.
Even if you think Bush hung the moon, you ought to see this movie.
Here is an interesting timeline, from numerous and varied sources, of Bush's actions/knowledge as the events of 9/11 unfolded.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-08-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-08-2004).]
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.