I don
I dont really see your point at the end.about downloading the movie? If that's the case, it's just to say do it, if you want to see it....he's telling us to, and you won't have to send any of your money his way.
it's about time the democrats quit taking the "high-road".
Take it for what it's worth (which is very little). Either way, It has little relevance to what I was talking about in my last post.
I understood your last post, you wanted a world without Michael Moore before you wanted a world with Michael Moore.LMAO!
I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with. Pick one or two of the best ones and post those. Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.
I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with. Pick one or two of the best ones and post those. Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.
That's a false assumption based on your own beliefs and opinions. Shmokes are you really Michael Moore?
Drew,I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with. Pick one or two of the best ones and post those. Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion. If we want a giant list of links we already have google.If more people used google to check Moore's "facts" there wouldn't be as many undecided voters out there, one way or the other. I don't doubt that many may NOT click on them all, but I don't mind doing it at all, since I highly doubt anyone gets ANY of this information on a daily basis, and if someone just clicks one of them, then my job disseminating information is helping to combat Moore's propaganda...er...documentary.
Even Bush says the we never found WMDs.you are 100% wrong in making this statement. You should read the statement he did make. You may have heard that there were several items were found, including biological agents. Click this to see what he DID say. (http://www.patandkat.com/pat/weblog/archives/2004/07/12/004210.php) There's a definite difference between the words you're attempting to put into his mouth and what actually came out. THAT'S another reason I've taken to posting these links. The words that are said aren't matching up to what the public is being told he said.
He now makes the case that even without WMDs our invasion was justified because Iraq was a declared enemy of America that might one day make WMDs, and in such a case they might one day give those weapons to Terrorists. That's a lot of mights.Make sure you make the whole case.
I might make an assassination attempt on the Pope. I might try to rob a bank. I might go postal and kill everybody at my work. But you can't really send the police after me until it is clear that I did these things or WILL do them.that's because we aren't declaring war against you. Oh, and I WOULD be able to have the police come and visit you for a bit. They ARE still allowed to talk to someone, right? Sure, they can't arrest you for those things, but they can investigate the possibility that you might try 'em. To use your line, apples and oranges.
It boils down to: It is okay for America to invade a country and overthrow its government if said country does not like America and has the ability, or may some day in the unspecified future, have the ability to make dangerous weapons. Why do you think so many nations, including western democracies, find our actions so deplorable?I say yes, but for so much more than the simplistic view you present. The fact that he would use such weapons against his own people, would look to use them against us, would thumb his nose at the U.N. everyone is so fond of praising, defy the U.N. resolution everyone wanted us to get FIRST before declaring war...as for the "so many nations"...I'm fine with Poland, Spain, Britain, Japan, et al being secure enough in the knowledge that we were doing the right thing. It's the countries (France, Russia, Germany being the notables) who were found to be running shady deals we Americans are so quick to castigate our companies for...those are the people who disagree with us? I'm surprised they could see our "wrongdoings", what with the friggen plank in their eye.
I'm fine with his "life begins at conception" but "I don't want to legislate my beliefs." It means that he realizes that God is probably capable of doing his job. If he needs to send people to hell, fine. But as far as society is concerned, making abortions illegal causes more harm than good.I find his selective reasoning further promotes the "Waffle House" image and wonder if even you know where he stands on an issue. You say that "It means", but until you show me where he has ever said that, then you're arguing something purely conjectural. Let the man stand for something, open his mouth and make a stand, or tell us what "it means". Right now, all he continues to tell us is that he voted for it before he voted against it.
It wasn't just six ---uvulas---, Drew. The rest of that report has been leaked. Take a look at it.I've done the nice thing for you...I've given you (in your opinion ;) ) link after useless link to bolster my charges, but you say something like this, and don't give me any information. Show me the money. I'm willing to concede that there may be more than six people. I'm willing to eat my hat on this issue. I just need to see some more information. That's kind of unfair on your part, too, to make such a claim and give me no basis for it. Please show me where you've seen that. I like discussing this stuff with you!
You don't think it's a big deal that this stuff is happening to Iraqi soldiers, but I suspect you'd sing a different tune if we found U.S. soldiers suffering similar conditions in a foreign prison.You're putting words in my mouth...please use salt next time ;) I do think it's a big deal, I just won't throw the vast (I don't know a figure to define it, so vast will have to do) number of soldiers "under the bus" who are doing an admirable job. That's my point. Click the "most important" link I posted. Where have you seen pictures like that? I'd be willing to bet several month's wages that you haven't seen it in the general newspapers or television...wait, I'll clarify. I'd bet you haven't seen anywhere near the same coverage that the prison scandal gets. I'll wait until we take all our soldiers out of Iraq, if you want to wait that long. You'll NEVER see the good we do focused on with the laser lights they use to point out "a bunch" (I'll use that phrase until you get your info to me) of people and their wrongdoings.
Well...if I try to respond to any more of your argument my post is going to become so long that even more people will just skip over it.witty repartee, I like it ;D
Try to focus. Make one or two points at a time and people will be much more willing to read what you've taken the time to write.There's too much to comment on! Are you saying you'd like to see 5 posts with 2 points on them in a row?! My "Evil Conservative Industries" sig will make those 5 just as long as these...6 of one, bakers dozen of another....sorry, that's that new math! ;D
And about the Michael Moore thing.............ssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!Mikey, you magnificent b&#tard! Have a sandwich, wouldja?! You're looking a little haggard!
Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it? I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.QuoteIt wasn't just six ---uvulas---, Drew. The rest of that report has been leaked. Take a look at it.I've done the nice thing for you...I've given you (in your opinion ;) ) link after useless link to bolster my charges, but you say something like this, and don't give me any information. Show me the money. I'm willing to concede that there may be more than six people. I'm willing to eat my hat on this issue. I just need to see some more information. That's kind of unfair on your part, too, to make such a claim and give me no basis for it. Please show me where you've seen that.
Drew,I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with. Pick one or two of the best ones and post those. Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion. If we want a giant list of links we already have google.If more people used google to check Moore's "facts" there wouldn't be as many undecided voters out there, one way or the other. I don't doubt that many may NOT click on them all, but I don't mind doing it at all, since I highly doubt anyone gets ANY of this information on a daily basis, and if someone just clicks one of them, then my job disseminating information is helping to combat Moore's propaganda...er...documentary.
QuoteEven Bush says the we never found WMDs.you are 100% wrong in making this statement. You should read the statement he did make. You may have heard that there were several items were found, including biological agents. Click this to see what he DID say. (http://www.patandkat.com/pat/weblog/archives/2004/07/12/004210.php) There's a definite difference between the words you're attempting to put into his mouth and what actually came out. THAT'S another reason I've taken to posting these links. The words that are said aren't matching up to what the public is being told he said.
1. I don't click on a lot of the links you post, because when I do I find very little substance there.but you do click on some. Your opinion of them is fine with me, everyone's entitled to theirs, and those that are of a similar opinion as mine DO find them to be helpful, as evidenced in this thread. It also leads me to believe that there are many who hold similar opinions that do not post here. I don't expect them all to say "WAY TO GO! GIVE IT TO 'EM!", but I'll extrapolate those that have said thanks to mean keep it up.
Ummm.... The link you posted only has Bush saying (and I'll quote it so nobody has to click the link)
Um, Drew. Your link does nothing to prove that Bush didn't say it.You're asking me to prove a negative (in my opinion)...just because shmokes said Bush said it doesn't make it true...the burden of proving it lies with him. What I am doing is making an assumption based on reasoning that if, indeed, Bush HAD said we have not found WMD's, it would have been trumpeted over and over, shouted from the highest mountaintop. I have also assumed that the words Bush said are what shmokes is referring to when he says "Even Bush says the we never found WMDs." I'll state my position, as well as offer the challenge to anyone else who wishes to assist shmokes on this: If you state something as fact regarding the words that came out of someone's mouth, post a link to the quote to back up your position - also, don't be so disingenuous as to post a "cut and paste-d" quote from someone i.e. cutting out the "STOCKPILES" from his oral offering - unless you're Michael Moore...then, let us know it's you so we can praise you or throw rotten eggs, whichever way the individual leans politically :)
btw, isnt ironic, that their spewing about the lies of the press, when they're on a news show?it would be ironic, but only if there would be a more even-handed treatment of things that are reported on by someone other than a cable news show. I, for example, don't have cable and thus can't watch O'Reilly unless I go to my father-in-law's house. I never knew he disagreed with Ms Coulter on this subject until looking at that page! And to think, he's considered part of the conservative propaganda machine too! Realize that whoever has the most sensational, salacious, "OHMYGODREALLY?!?" story will be the one who gets the ratings...why do you think Rush has as large an audience as he does? He angers people as well as soothes the conservative soul! People who disagree with him want to listen to see what he says so they can tell their friends "And did you hear what that jack-hole Limbaugh said?!?".
The real Liberal Agenda:I didn't have Him on there, but I will try to make sure He doesn't go on there again! I wasn't able to download that 10 Mb file yet, but I'll view the movie when I do get that done. WHERE on earth do you find these links, James ;) ? I'll assume it's like the rest of them I've seen from you, and say nice job :-\ Whenever I check out your links, I wonder what you were like as a kid - were you the one who realized you had to play with matches to light the propane cylinder to get the blowtorch started to melt the G.I. Joe? ;) What can you expect from James St James, though, hey? :-*
http://www.ericSchwartz.com/video.html
scroll down smart one
okokok. Just a question, we are doing this all in fun right? no bad blood? ok. I hope so. Btw, who are you voting for DK? Just a shot in the dark, but Nader.Not necessarily in fun, but I never mean anyone harm. I just like discussing this stuff, James ;) Unless you crack wise about my momma or accuse me of not caring cuz I'm an evil conservative, then there's truly no bad blood. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and that's probably closest to the real reason there are two sides to opinions on the war.
BTW tell me what you think of the vid. Very funny stuff. and GET ON AIM!
Everyone saying that Moore has made the mainstream swollow blindly what he puts out is true but remember that lots of other news stations and websites do this as well.you'll never hear me say they've swallowed blindly what he puts out. I believe they use his film and similar things like it to promote their agenda while trying to maintain an appearance of balance. See, putting his stuff in an article lets the writer off (to a certain extent) because if someone disagrees with them or accuses them of being partisan, they tend to fall back on "I'm just reporting on what happened, that's all...it's a sheer coincedence that I happen to be a card-carrying member of the communist party". For all those who think those people don't exist, see Glenn Beck - and listen to him for a while if he comes in by you (make sure you check out his theory as to why you'll hate his show until a few weeks go by, too!) (http://www.glennbeck.com) and check out his staff...he's got an actual card carrying member!
My opinion is that the bottom line is if he wasn't George Bush's son he would be sweeping some floor somewhere instead of being a leader of the free world.Ya know, I was just thinking the same thing as I watched MY Ivy League graduate janitor sweep up our shop ::) C'mon, man, be a little more intellectually honest. That's not your opinion, that's just what you'd LIKE to see him doing. As it is, it must grate on you like nails on a chalkboard that he gave you back some "extra" money in your paycheck and now you have to figure out how to give it back to some organization better suited to doling out your money than yourself. Send it here... www.drews_cabinet_fund.org Thousands (ok, just my OWN) of kids are hoping to play Pac Man...won't you help them realize their dream :'( ;)
~Mas
If you want to see the true Liberals and how deeply they think, go to www.protestwarrior.com, that's the real storyDUDE! That link is sweet! I"m bookmarking that at home...thanks! :D
GO DREW
Thank you for all the good linksDrewFredster! We appreciate it!
I'm a-gonna make it my goal to convert Floyd and Shmokes into Glenn Beck fans...and...if I work hard enough at it...doggone it...think I can, I think I can, I think I ca.....
janitor they can't even prove served in the national guard because they "lost" his records.
I'll prolly be DL'ing the vid tomorrow (real-life intrudes tonight, I'm just replying from work before heading home), and I'll let ya know. Hey, mebbe you rememeber some song about a "plastic Jesus on my dashboard"?!? Shot in the dark, but I figure if anyone knows of it, it'd be you
Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it? I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.
There's still a chance for America to be strong and free after this next election.
Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it? I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.
Yeah...sorry. I haven't even been looking for the report (much of my daily news intake comes from NPR. It's difficult to link to as it is spoken word (of course I could link to streaming audio and you can listen to the story, but I'm sure you'd rather something written).
Hopefully I should have some time today or tomorrow to do a little research and respond.
There's still a chance for America to be strong and free after this next election.
I don't see where the flip flop is. One could even say those phrases in one breath and it would make perfect sense.
How anyone can support the ultimate flip-flopper is beyond me.
02.08.04: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/)
"I'm a war president."
07.20.04 (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20455435.htm)
"I want to be the peace president"
"I am a Minnesotan but I want to be an Iowan"
much of my daily news intake comes from NPR. It's difficult to link to as it is spoken word (of course I could link to streaming audio and you can listen to the story, but I'm sure you'd rather something written).Nah, the stream is fine...it's the info that I'm looking for, that's all.
well, Iowans have been waiting as long as Minnesotans for a pro football team, so... ;) (sorry, couldn't resist!)"I am a Minnesotan but I want to be an Iowan"OK, being from Minnesota, I have to say "THAT IS WRONG!". j/k Iowans ;) ;D
It seems I underestimated the common sense my fellow Americans have. I too will not post to any more of these idiotic threads. (no offence Drew, I know why you started this, and your efforts helped renew my faith in the American people)I used to feel the same thing about my fellow Americans. I also take no offense. 8)
How about a janitor with a DUI or one that can barely even speak english correctly (go ahead and goole his fantastic quotes, try "bush funny quotes") or a janitor they can't even prove served in the national guard because they "lost" his records.I don't spek inglish sew goodly sumtymz neether. I'm sure speaking to the nation or knowing your every word is reported on makes it easy. Got me on that one. What it does illustrate is just how good Clinton WAS as a public speaker, and shows what happens when you underestimate a politician.
Ivy league please, you think daddy didn't have any pull in that one, and even then Ivy league is a football league not a golden path to greatness. Now you are being intellectually dishonest.
I guess maybe missing records is a common thing but then again I am going out on a limb here and saying you are not the offspring of a former President. They may keep tighter hold of those, but I do not know.status profiling?
Logan says Bush could have turned his DUI into a positive campaign message.So he passed tougher laws, they recognized that he could have used it as a campain issue (to his advantage) and didn't...I'm good with how he's dealt with it...everyone remembers how this came out right before everyone went to the polls (was that an attempt to use it to someone else's advantage ??? ::) ) I'm ok with how Bush dealt with his DUI...are you ok with my state's exhibition of utter hypocrisy towards a politician's DUI? See, it's silly to think there's not an example on either side of the aisle. (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb107687.php)
"He could have taken it and run with it, and been very proactive about it and made a stance against it," she said, "because he has been supportive of tougher drunk-driving laws in Texas."
As Texas governor, Bush has backed lowering the legal limit for blood-alcohol concentration to 0.8 percent and making it illegal for underage drivers to have even a trace of alcohol in their systems. Both are now the law in Texas. The national office of MADD issued a statement today saying, "We appreciate Gov. Bush's support of anti-drunk-driving legislation in Texas."
"He could have been more up front [about his DUI], and it could have worked to his advantage," Logan said. "Too late now."
As someone who was involved in the armed forces I would like to know if you think the soldiers/US Staff were just having fun, acting on their own or if their orders to do that "abuse" came from Rumsfeld or someone else.you say Rumsfeld or someone else. That encompasses a whole lot of people who COULD have acted on their own. Please narrow it down or be more specific in your charge. I do not think Mr. Rumsfeld was apprised of that particlar situation before it happened, and have no reason to think otherwise.
None of this is meant to offend anyone and if I have done so I apologize, I said before I am no expert and these are my opinions.If any of us were experts, wouldn't we be better suited to talking to someone other than a bunch of arcade fanatics :)
haven't yo picked up on the point of what EVERYONE complains about from the right? Any kind of media (except web pages and other sources that PRINT) are run by bad bad people? the people who want our country to fall apart? it's all a conspiricy if you heard it on the radio (unless it was rush...the fat drug addict guy who's been divorced 2 times[at least that's what I saw printed on a T Shirt..]...not those 3 guys who sound like women, but are good on drums) or saw it on TV.if you read me, it's not about bad people, it's about how the story is written to make the most impact. The fat drug addict says what he says to make the most impact. That's why to you, he's the fat drug addict, while to many, he's known more commonly as Rush Limbaugh.
This whole attitude of "well if someone took the time to write it down ..it has got to be true" just blows my mind. I clicked on 2 or 3 of Drews links and it's like....there are so many of those ads on the sides of the "article" that I suspect they may be home made by him on tripod or something.Actually, geocities gives me more features I want, so I go with them. ;D
What "well respected" paper was it that just had the guy who was just making stuff up and putting it in the paper? I don't think he made it up, because he wrote it down. right? that's how it works?that was the NY Times. The rest, depends on your perspective.
For the love of god. How can people argue that one side is right and the other is wrong when they're all as crooked as they could possibly be!?well, if you don't stand for something you'll fall for everything. The challenge is to pick who you think is the "least crooked".
And who cares if gay people want to get married?many many people who think it's not right.
Some of the weddings I go to put an emphasis on LOVE. If 2 gay people LOVE each other enough to make it legal, why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?because then you wouldn't be able to call them "gay". ;)
...but I read a few posts and had to yell at someone about your opinion is your opinion. It's not right. It's not wrong. It's yours and thats all you can say about it.but it's still o.k. to speak about your opinion and debate with others who don't hold the same opinion, that's all that's going on...it's not like I told someone I'm tearing the control panel off of my Centipede and making a three-tier 247 button 4 player control panel to replace it.
The real problem in this country is no one is responsible for anything and everyone is upset. Everyone gets "offended". I can't even figure out what that means. I've never BEEN offended. I can't imagine being so arrogant that if someone calls me a name or says something I don't like it would actually bother me. It's their opinion, and they're entitled to that.stop forcing your opinions on us, man. ;) ;D But seriously, good point.
Yeah, Hooray for those people a the Linda Ronstadt (Linda Ronstadt for chrissakes!) show. Someone said something I didn't like...that means I can throw my drinks and tear the place apart. Jesus! are we animals? why is a singer talking politics the story here? what about all the idiots who went balistic because they heard some words in a certain order and it upset them?the few that did those things didn't exhibit the same discretion others did. I'd be upset that I paid $80 to hear someone sing and they started spewing their political views...perhaps some felt the need to extract their pound of flesh. That was their choice. If they got arrested for it, that was the consequence to their actions...what better way to teach cause and effect - responsibility for one's own actions?!?
My point is who really cares about any of this...kinda like 8bit pointed out a few posts ago. I think about a few things....well, the same could be said of this hobby...different strokes for different folks. Sometimes, each person being different, worlds collide. It seems that many care about this...you yourself exhibit concern - at least about the fact that we shouldn't care so much about this
When clinton was president he got the gig by being cool and playing the sax! and I was happy and all my friends had good jobs and everything was cool. Then when bush got elected, I and some of my friends lost our jobs, we don't make as much money nowI saw you speak to this in two differenc areas...combined 'em here...neither president had anything to do with your job, those are decisions that a company makes. Why didn't you hold out for a better paying job? I think two planes flying into buildings in an attack in our land may have something to do with MY life and attitude being different, but your life and attitude (you spoke of personal responsibility before) are what you make of them.
I'm sure that Clinton had nothing to do with my job or anyone elses and I'm sure Bush didn't have anything to do with getting all those poor people killed. But for me, my life and attitude seemed better when there was a Democrat in office.
and I see posts on my favorite FREAKING PAGE ON THE INTERNET about how MY BEST FRIEND FROM HIGH SCHOOL JUST GOT KILLED BECAUSE OF OUR WAR.I see that it upsets you, but it's still something that will be talked about, for precisely the reason you're upset...some folks want to voice their displeasure at this war and all that is going on around it. I'd like not to be able to say "I've got you beat" in the people lost in the war issue, but that's why I feel the need to speak about this stuff. I find Moore's movie personally offensive towards the people I've lost, and feel that his lies are detrimental to the safety of our armed forces and thus, can't sit by and not say something about it.
Do I need to watch a movie or read a bunch of internet sites (that someone took the time to type up!) to know this stuff? nope...I just remember.It has nothing to do with remembering. I have more money in my check - I SAW the extra money I got to keep. That had nothing to do with a movie or some article I read or remembering. It was an affirmation that someone was doing something for me that I believed in, and that's why people watch/read things that affirm their point of view.
Now, I want you all to just reply and say how right I am, and you're all sorry that you tricked me into reading this post.you're right, I'm sorry I tricked you into reading this. ;D
I'm a normal personsaid the guy with the pretty white jacket with the crossed sleeves that buckles up the back ;)
when everyone tells me what a stupid idiot fatso loser I am, I can take it...I won't get offendedyou are a stupid idiot fatso loser (sorry, couldn't resist) ;) :-*
59 Deceits of F/911?Come on...make with the descriptions...more words - flesh out your arguments. :)
Compared to the 10,124 deciets from the Bush (BUllSHit) administration!? LMAO!
You guys are too much! :o
59 Deceits of F/911?Come on...make with the descriptions...more words - flesh out your arguments. :)
Compared to the 10,124 deciets from the Bush (BUllSHit) administration!? LMAO!
You guys are too much! :o
BTW, did you download and read it/the movie?
Have YOU actually read it all and seen the movie?As a matter of fact, I have, that's why I started this thread. Have you not read that? It may disqualify you from commenting on me, if you haven't ;) I've seen people say that a person is poorly qualified to comment on something if they haven't seen or "experienced" it personally. Now, I'll admit, Dodgeball got my money, but I saw and "experienced" this film.
And when I mean see the movie, I mean see it from a point of veiw that wont see what it wants to see.So now the "you gotta see the movie" argument is being further refined, more narrowed? Are you saying if I didn't see it this way, it precludes me from commenting on it?!? I've gone into plenty of movies for my wife that I DREADED seeing because they were "chick flicks" (honey, in case you're reading this, see, I DO love you) and come out saying "that was a pretty good movie".
Do you not read things like bowling for truth and kinda wonder why they say certain things they do?I would like to pose the reverse of your question to you - Do you not wonder why he is writing the things that he does? Do you not wonder if there's a possibility that there may be another (or usually, three, four, or more sources) source out there that debunks his arguments? That's rather interesting, as it appears that you are assuming that I don't do this.
it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.
(http://ttp://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11507It)
You seem to venture off topic of my question and never directly answer it but ramble on and on and in some instances repeated things you just said. Very cute.I answered each of your questions. If you feel I didn't answer one of your questions, please state the specific question you feel I didn't answer. Please show, as well, the instances where I put words in your mouth.
Im give you an example with this. Many who saw bowling for columbine saw it only as just an anti-gun film instead of rather what Moore was originally intending for.. however to be fair Moore really went askew of those original intentions for the film to further bring out emphasis towards cultures affect on our motivsI just cannot comprehend how you can say what Moore was intending for, then say that he went askew! Isn't he the same person who did the movie?! How the heck can you say he intended one thing, then went askew?! He intended to go askew, then!
Im frankly tired of listening to an abundant of zealotry on message boards by people subjecting onto others that they dont know the truth unless they are told so from another for of media that has potential to be equally as biased. And I think im deffinetly not alone.what I'm tired of is seeing the promotion he is receiving by saying Disney was "censoring" him, when all they were doing was making a business decision. He's achieved his goal, his movie is out, and now it's being used to pillory an administration by using clear deception and outright lies.
Before bowling for columbine was out Moore did an interview with Richard Linklater (famous for his indy films like slacker, he also wrote at the same time a movie called Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes). Moore discussed what he thought about indy films and how they were heading and then Linklater asked him if hes got anything new planned. he mentioned a movie that was going to be about Columbine High massacre (which would become Bowling For Columbine). Moore's original intent according to him was that with the height of everyone accusing each other of why the kids at columbine did what they did he was going to show that these kids werent being influenced by video games, music, tv,... etc. Nothing about the NRA, nothing about the meetings that occured and all that... that appeared into the concept somewhere at the start of the movie. Gus Van Sant stole a similar approach with his film Elephant which was recreating a similar massacre to show that the kids had all these aspects around them (like violent video games, violent movies, music.. etc) but he failed with coming accross with resolve for the film. At this point in time most people didnt have a clue who Michael Moore even was. However Moore, being Moore just part way into pre-production switched a great course of the film. And this is something that does happen in films... <auto-censored> theres another version of American History X that didnt make it because Norton's ego got in the way. But with Moore there was only one thing bigger than himself... and that was his ego. Its possible that he tried to doupe us.... but I think with an interview with a friend like Linklater... he would have been honest with him.
You seem to venture off topic of my question and never directly answer it but ramble on and on and in some instances repeated things you just said. Very cute;) "Imitation" is the most sincere form of flattery, and I appreciate your expression of approval of my work. :-* :P
ooooooooooo. I hate herJames, you know she secretly turns you on and you really want her to tie you up and spank you until you call HER "daddy"!
hehehe
The letter to Moore says, "In an instance that The Pantagraph prints materials in which there is a mistake, it is corrected. It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard and correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."yeah, right...don't hold your breath on that first one ::)
In its news story, the paper said, "The letter calls into question the ethics of how Moore made his movie, a movie whose primary purpose is to call into question the ethics of the Bush White House."
"He missed an important opportunity to find out key facts," he said. "In my opinion he should have made every effort to go to a country he has taken to task so heavily in his film."So time and again Moore decieves/lies (aren't they getting to be interchangeable when referring to this bloated buffoon?) and yet, I haven't seen the news story that condemns his movie as a propoganda piece designed to circumvent the campaign finance laws (tell me this ISN'T designed to be a mouthpiece for the Kerry/Edwards campaign).
Moore can lose weight, this thread will always be stupid.
Moore can lose weight
Stuff like DD's post show this thread to be erudite beyond belief.Moore can lose weight, this thread will always be stupid.
That is a lie.
He can't lose weight, and he will die fat, and only lose weight when the worms start eating away at his flesh.
...(my god, Drew, you must be a government employee or unemployed).possibly having foot surgery, so I'm here, there, and everywhere to doctor after doctor after test facility, after therapy after....sheesh...and I work when I can.
Okay....Here's Bush admitting that Iraq hasn't got (and didn't have) any WMD's:just did this to fix your link...I'll look into this later tonight. I may concede this to you ;)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/bush.speech.ap/index.html)
"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them." I heard him say this. It was an admission that Iraq did not posess WMD's.
Here is an excellent movie showing Bush joking about there being no WMD's. It's probably as effective as Michael Moore's film even though it's only about 60 seconds long. bushjoke (http://media.musicforamerica.org/media/bushjoke.mov)again, just making the link clickable here
On the Abu Ghraib prison conditions, here is a link to the newstory. It's NPR so you can listen to it, or there's a link to a U.S. News and World News report on it, but it costs a few bucks. NPR (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3351015)now it can be viewed
Edit: here's a print article about it (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/prison.htm)
Ann Coulter is a dog. The only reason people even think she's good looking is in the political pundit world she has no competition. She's ugly.I actually agree with this point, but it behooves me to use her to have fun with those who disagree with her because
And she's worse than Moore when it comes to journalistic integrity. And she's extraordinarily mean. A cruel, lying hack. I swear to god there's something wrong with her.you could be right there. Or else you try to get others to think you hate her because you secretly love her ;)
If someone tells me how to set up links right in here I'll fix those. I guess I can't just use HTML.Actually, those seemed to be perfectly good links if used on a web page, but they use a slightly different format of it for bulletin boards. Check your IM for how I did it.
Moore will always be fat.
If I were Moore, I'd actually make a documentary about the obescity epidemic in this country and in parallel I'd lose a good portion of the weight in order to make some progressive commentary, and to be a little bit of a smart-ass. If Moore were thin 95% of the wingnuts criticism of him would be instantly invalidated.
Before I post this, I just want too say that I am a Canadian and I have not seen F9/11.
I just want to say, you can't vote againts Bush (and that's all Moore wants, not to vote for someone better, just to vote against Bush), so your opinion on this means nothing to me.
(Saint, if you happen to read this, i'm not really going to sue anybody...I'm a normal person who beleives people should have the right to their own opinion, so when everyone tells me what a stupid idiot fatso loser I am, I can take it...I won't get offended or sue anyone...don't ruin all their fun and close the post and for god's sake don't close th forums! :) )
Allroy
You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
Now I know that no anti-moore people talk about this but he was an eagle scout
He also was elected to be on the school board at age 18.
One of the youngest elected people in US history.
I assume Dartful Dodger that you are at least 15. Eagle scout?
But I have to ask if you are over 18 if you have been elected yet?
Well...he's definitely fat. And perhaps somewhat ethically challenged. But Lazy??? Common. Maybe you haven't heard of Bowling for Columbine or Farenheight 9/11. They're these films he is famous for.he IS about working hard to get his message out, on that, he definitely CANNOT be called lazy. Good point!
What a bunch of cry babies. Rush Limbaugh has been doing what Michael Moore is doing for the last...um....a long time. And you've got Hannedy, O'Reily and Coulter. Learn to laugh a little. It helps guard against hypocrisy. Michael Moore is a bit of a bafoon. What are you going to do? Sit around and complain about it?we were gonna try until you came along with your fascist attitude about telling us what we should and shouldn't do about it ;) Can you guys believe he TOLD us to laugh a little? Adolf, thanks for the Volkswagons and all, but...lemme wallow a bit! ;D (I, for one, am glad he's fat...I'd want him arrested and flogged if he were skinny and good looking, another quality he's not known to possess!)
Now you're sounding like a liberal ;):'( just you wait'll I tell my mom you said that! ;)
You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.
Now I know that no anti-moore people talk about this but he was an eagle scout
He also was elected to be on the school board at age 18.
One of the youngest elected people in US history.
I assume Dartful Dodger that you are at least 15. Eagle scout?
But I have to ask if you are over 18 if you have been elected yet?
I did not say he was fat, I'm saying he IS fat and that he can not lose weight.
Learn to laugh a little.Can you guys believe he TOLD us to laugh a little?
Correction: I told you to LEARN to laugh a little. I left the decision whether or not to laugh completely up to you.Sorry, you're right. I didn't read that...but I blame it all on the public school system I'm a product of ;D I joined the ghetto version of Skull & Bones, Cranium & Femurs, but all we aspired to was "master of our domain".
Drew,curses, I've been found out. Was that a Walther? Actually, that's one of the reasons I couldn't serve the U.S. My salutes always were messed up and I couldn't stop saying Heil instead of sir. That and how I kept spelling U.S. with that funny shaped "S".
I notice in your little animated avatar guy that he types with the barrel of one of those pistols used by Nazis in WWII. Perhaps this is something like a Freudian slip???
Now who's the fascist!!!!?
Drew,curses, I've been found out. Was that a Walther? Actually, that's one of the reasons I couldn't serve the U.S. My salutes always were messed up and I couldn't stop saying Heil instead of sir. That and how I kept spelling U.S. with that funny shaped "S".
I notice in your little animated avatar guy that he types with the barrel of one of those pistols used by Nazis in WWII. Perhaps this is something like a Freudian slip???
Now who's the fascist!!!!?
As for James, you prancing nancy boy (or is that girly man?) I find your high heeled avatarsexydisturbing.
finally seen the movie now.wait....you just saw it? what took you so long? Had to put the steering wheel on the correct side of the car before you could drive to the theater? :P
as you were...
hehe. well its been going for maybe a month here but ive gone off michael moore a bit lately so i was contemplating just downloading the movie rather than pad his already rather large wallet!!Nobody told me left-leaning people get all the cool jap cars :o I may have to re-think my conservative outlook now! Lied to AGAIN! ;)
i like OUR side better, means we get all the cool jap cars as they were supposed to be ;)
medicare, mah man. medicare. everyones covered for most things except dental. (darful dodgers?) favourite place, france even covers you for that!! you can get private health insurance here, which entails faster service and prettier nurses, but if you cant afford it you wont be sent to gaol for being sick!! my sister had a boyfriend in the US and he was broke for years after breaking his leg. had to get a loan :(So you have medicare to cover your medical bills. Gotcha. What are the tax rates over there to pay for medicare? Oh, and how much does it cost to get a prettier nurse...I'm ALL for that! I'm a little disappointed that I pay so much for the woofers ;) we've got.
who knows? hehe. i never pay much attention to tax rates. our new gst will be obvious when its hiked since its an (arbitrarily) even 10%. different governments draw the line at different things. many countries have some form of medicare. some countries hardly get enough revenue to repair their statues of liberty (not singleing anyone out, hehe). just think, in the real old days governments didnt even pay for soldiers- they just left it up to rich people to supply the armies ;)Yeah, I also don't like the fact that my government's idea of a "budget" is a complete joke - on BOTH sides. They play the "we should get this much money this year, and because of this, we can increase spending this amount", instead of how you or I do a budget. We HAVE this much money, so we can't spend above and beyond that, unless a line item in our budget is to pay the bank so we build up a savings. The U.S. budget is a joke, plain and simple, and both parties use/twist/shape it to suit their purposes, rather than having it suit the people they serve.
Rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people. Private property protection was arguably the founding fathers' cheif concern when designing the new government. Let the people with property pay for it.If you'll notice, I didn't say a flat tax was the ideal or only solution. You are referring to, in essence, a consumption tax, which I am for. I don't care how it gets paid, just make it so that we all know who gets to pay what, and that is what ISN'T being addressed. THAT is the point where a budget should be started, which is the thing I was addressing.
hehe. death and taxes...
And I don't just think that rich people should pay more than poor people, I think that they should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.
It's all about redistribution of wealth. And yes, I am for it.Other than the college example, I don't disagree with very much you said, I'd perhaps word it differently....at work right now, so don't have bunches of time to think over the theory you post in that quote.
Do I believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" No, not really. Or, rather, I believe that it's a fundamentally good idea, but I think if you add a healthy dose of capitalistic incentive in there a person's "ability" can be dramatically increased.
I fall somewhere in the middle. I think people should be rewarded for hard work, blah blah blah. I just think they owe a greater percentage back to society. Robin Hood was good, despite what Ayn Rand will tell you. He wasn't just robbing the rich, he was robbing the rich people who were stealing from the poor people. It's an important distinction.
Yes, rich people should pay more tax. You are taxing a rich person's ability to buy a nicer yaght. You tax a poor person's ability to send their kids to college. Once again, a flat tax (one in which everybody pays the same percentage of their income in taxes) does not affect everyone the same way. Taking $200,000 out of a $1,000,000 annual household income does not affect a person in as imporant a way as taking $4,000 out of a $20,000 household income. That would be a 20% flat tax (but I suspect a flat tax would likely need to be quite a bit higher than that, unless our government changed its spending habits fundamentally). Whether you tax them with luxury taxes or income taxes, rich people should pay more in taxes.
I'm a little fuzzy here, what's the difference between a "consumption tax" and a "sales tax"?They're very similar. It would probably raise one tax, while reducing or eliminating another (those on the other side of it argue that it again aids the rich and screws the poor, instead of seeing that it benefits the poor, and benefits the rich as well. It's all a matter of how you view someone else's money ::) )
I don't understand how...a system that would give a known outcome is ridiculed as being punitive to the poor. I though the poor were being taxed out of their minds!?! Which is it?
billionaire ketchup heiress
And if you don't like it, move to France
I trust that we will elect people who look out for us, like President Bush.
Poor Person: Take a working class guy with a couple of kids. Lets say it's the $20,000 a year household income family. Regardless of the incentive, he's just barely scraping by and simply has no money to save. So he pays, you know, taxes on everything he buys.So we understand each other, the $ amount isn't relative to this, it's just a number used for illustrative purposes, right? As for paying taxes on everything he buys, he already does that, only difference is the rate. Oh, and right now, if he DOES have any savings, that's also taxed, so there's no incentive for him to do so at all right now, unless he has some goal in mind and will do so regardless of the fact that his savings are taxed.
Rich Person: Here's a wealthy guy. Let's say he married a ketchup heiress (who is not a billionair -- worth like 450 million, I think).I was talking about Mrs. Hunts...is there another ketchup heiress you had in mind ;)
His ketchup company is paying him a cool million dollars a year. But he realizes, that he already owns a bunch of houses, a plane, a great boat, cars. He can totally get by on spending just 500,000 a year. Now he just puts the other $500,000 in savings and not pay any taxes. That's pretty cool, because he used to pay about a third of that million bucks in taxes and now he pays nothin'.I know you addressed that I spoke of a limit, and I understand you're just making your point.
This would be a tax break that pretended to apply the same to everybody but, of course, it only applies to people with disposable income.kind of hard to give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay that much in taxes to begin with. Remember how everyone ridiculed Bush for "giving a tax cut that equates to a new muffler for your car"?
Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings? Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?yeah, I guess if that "poor" person has $10,000 in the bank, he's gonna let it sit there, and never spend a dime of it...ever...not even on food, clothing, shelter, gas, cars, houses....encouraging someone to save will eventually lead them to see that they can (despite all they're fed about how they can't get ahead for one reason or another) afford those things that seemed out of reach...show them how they can afford better things than what they have...in short, do what Americans do best...anger foreigners...wait...spend money to better thier lives.
If the "outcome" is punitive to the poor, it is so regardless of whether the results were known beforehand.You see the result as taxing the snot out of the poor, I see it as telling them they'll be taxed "x" amount of dollars so they can plan how they will overcome that, rather than having them think they're going to be taxed "x", and instead be taxed "y" and spend the rest of the next year trying to recover from that, only to have the cycle start all over again the following year.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that in spite of accountants and money managers, rich people do in fact pay the bulk of the tax burden in America.do I sense facetiousness in your words?! I've got to wonder why, if the rich do pay the bulk of the tax burden, these "rich" tax cuts don't just shut our economy down altogether, since they just save it and put it in the bank.
not a darn thing...but let's just see those tax records so we can tell how much "trickled down" and how much was put into "fat-cat tax shelters". I don't think it's immoral to have loads of money. What I think is immoral is to carp about those who don't "pay their fair share" while practising the very same things you rail against. The conservative viewpoint is not to rail against the fact that they aren't getting enough tax breaks, it's to strive to give everyone the opportunity to work their way up to the point where they reach "fat-cat" status. We both want the same thing - for everyone to be as successful as can be - we just differ on what route we should take to get there.Quotebillionaire ketchup heiress
This is my favorite thing about politics. As soon as there is an obscenely rich democrat, conservatives suddenly think that there is something immoral about having loads of money. What ever happened to the trickle down theory?
Put your money where your mouth is (read: send me some money for airfare).AHEM...I have already POSTED my plans for your air fare and it's use ;) (http://www.arcadecontrols.org/yabbse/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23104;start=msg190707#msg190707)
Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings? Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?
...there are many people who can't afford to send their kids to college, but don't qualify for grants either.still a terrible example, but only to me and others who believe as I do. If you wish to go to college, you can, somewhere. HOW it's paid for is where we differ. You say "...people who can't afford to send their kids to college", when the reality is that it's not the job of a parent to send their kid. It's the kids responsibility to find a way. The parents WANT to help, and normal parents TRY to help, but ultimately, they don't HAVE to. It's called teaching your kid the cruel realities of the world.
Phew...when I saw that Saint had posted I thought we might be in trouble again :Pme too! Then he went and got all political on us and stuff ;)
Drew, your tax policy seems to be rooted in fantasy land.that's fine that you would think that. I'm all for giving it a try. I currently do try it on my own small personal scale...so far, other than being taxed on my savings, it seems to be working pretty well. I save for larger and more important things, like a house, cabinet, and retirement, and yet still manage to spend on a daily basis to keep the economy going. I'm willing to take a shot at my "fantasy land" idea because the current program is more clouded in fantasy than my idea. How much are you getting back or paying this year? I can guarantee you what my idea would give for an answer - a known quantity. That's my problem with the current system. My claim is that when someone KNOWS what they have to pay, they can then plan and do something about it, regardless of their "ability to pay a high price accountant".
Government costs money. If you quit getting money from one place you have to get it from another place, or quit spending money.I seem to remember you saying somewhere that liberals are also for smaller government...correct me if I'm wrong about that...so if it's true that government costs money, then please tell me how much. That's all I'm wanting to get to. I want government to be held to the same standard you and I are. If we don't have the friggen money in the bank, we can't spend it, yet our government and it's current state of taxation spends it based on probability of what will come in. Our current "budget" (and the word has no meaning when it comes to government) is based on a statistical probability that they will collect "x" amount of dollars. What has the government done if they didn't get enough money to pay for those things? We've slowly been selling off America to help pay the bills, or done things contrary to the interest of our nation for the goal of getting money to pay for things we didn't need. What's going to happen when all these countries start cashing in their markers?
It is also an unrealistic fantasy to believe that this would somehow eradicate the IRS.that is my fantasy, but even I realize that it won't happen, and never said it would. The major goal of this would be to reduce the institution that is our IRS. Unless taxes were eliminated altogether, the IRS will be a constant.
Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobsno, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do...see, creating a business (thereby creating jobs) gives them the opportunity to make MORE money...they don't all create jobs, though. That just happens to be one of the better things they do with their money. They also help keep businesses that are already in business, busy. Tell us, do you think they just spread the money out on their bed and roll around on it? Patrick Ewing said it best when he said "We may make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too".
but when poor people get a tax break they....I don't know, burn the money?It hasn't been said that they don't contribute to creating jobs, but as you are fond of saying, the rich person has more money to do so, therefore there will be a larger impact when doing it. And I'm sure there are rich people burning their money too :P
In fact, the rich person is much more likely than the poor person to spend that money in another country, creating jobs there rather than in the U.S., so, arguably, tax cuts to the poor create more jobs than tax cuts to the rich.And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton. Did all those middle class folks who got their "tax cut" under him turn around and build restaurants that offer all those low paying burger flipping jobs that we are now relegated to performing in this "poor economy"? You continue to say that the rich are more able to improve our economy by paying a larger share of taxes; how then would the far lesser impact of tax cuts to the poor be creating more jobs?
No, a person isn't entitled, yet, to send their kids to college. I never actually made that claim.Nor have I, and haven't said that you did say such a thing. HEY! Something we both agree on! YAAYAYYAYAYAYAY! ;D Sooner or later, we will always come upon something that we agree on, one of these days, it may even be on something that is pertinent, hey?!
I said that a person's ability to send their kids to college is more important, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a societal standpoint, than another person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.you continue to give me the impression that you don't believe that someone rich isn't inclined to do something good with that money and in looking to further their own life will step all over the poor to reach their goal. I also get the impression that you think even if they DO do something nice with that money, you're better suited to parcel out their money for them because you know best where to put it. Remember those scholarships I spoke of? I'm still waiting to see the fund set up by John and Sally Muckenfutch.
My little sister is an example...she can take out loans, but is understandably reluctant to do so.I retract my statement that you would be hard-pressed to show me such a thing. However, I still stand by my feeling that if your sister wishes to further her education in an effort to better her standard of living, then it is her responsibility and no one else's! To take that to extremes, if your sister DOES take out a loan, succeeds WILDLY, thereby becoming "rich", why does it then become her responsibilty to pay for someone who doesn't want to go through the hard work she had to in order to better herself?
You know, come to think of it, you never addressed *GASP* getting a loan if you want a nicer yaght, but can't afford it with your tax burden.I am now addressing it. Get a loan, all you rich suckers out there, or if you don't want to do that, stop giving money to charities, scholarships, employees, etc.
Anyway, shouldn't you be against grants? Why should rich people have to pay to send poor people to college? One way we could lower taxes would be to get rid of grants altogether. :PANOTHER thing we agree on! ;) I AM against grants...I think if we stopped giving them out, people would be more interested in what they are getting for their money they spend on higher education, the money the schools waste, the continuing salaries of teachers not worth a plug nickel, etc.
And this is all a red herring. My argument never hinged on a poor person's ability to pay for college. That was just one example. If you don't think they should go to college feel free to substitute it with any of a million other more legitimate expenses. Substitute it with a poor person's ability to pay for medical expenses for their kids. Or their ability to buy nutritious food, or a decent car. Or their ability to go to the movies. Whatever...it's more imporant than the nicer yaght.I don't think any of these instances are any different. They're smaller expenditures, and each of them relate. If people are allowed to be in control of the money they pay (or don't pay) as a tax burden, they are better able to make decisions based on what's best for them and their family, period. If they wish to make poor decisions and run their life into the ground..well...there's where I agree with Darwin. I also object to your bringing up nutritious food. If people are buying such nutritious food already, how come there are so many open burger flipping jobs in this lousy economy :P
QuoteAnother myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobsno, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do
And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.
How's that for a liberal cheap shot?you're killin' me smallz! ;)
Ugghh....This is turning into a quagmire. Drew, I insist you be more economical with your posts. :P I don't want to go through and respond point-by-point to all that. If we want to keep an audience we've got to limit ourselves.as long as we don't accuse each other of skipping over some point "conveniently leaving that out of the argument". Deal?
Okay Ann Coult....er, I mean Drew. You can't just cut my sentence in half and respond to it as though the other half didn't exist, LOL. That's commonly known as taking something out of context. When you add the second half of my sentence on there it is clear that I did not say that rich people don't create jobs with their money.but adding on your second point doesn't make a difference in how we look at the issue. I look at giving the dude his fat chunk of change to spend. He's going to create those jobs quicker, thereby getting more Joe Taxpayers paying their small chunk, thereby getting more revenue faster.