Michael Moore

bibo said:
Certainly true. But then it´s still (or even more) bold to expect the people to follow their leader like a bunch of lemmings. :)

The "nobody really knows what´s going on there, so let´s just trust the guys in the know" argument is pretty dangerous because it removes our right to think, judge and decide for ourselves and puts us into the position of a silent, stupid mass. That´s not the idea of freedom and democracy is it?

True as well, but rather than bitching at and placing blame on ONE person( the president), I'm going to trust the decisions my country makes.

They are obviously more informed than I am, and know a better path to take then I do, so I'm going to let them to their job.


Im not going to say I hate kerry, cause I dont really hate many people, but I really dont like him. BUT if he gets into office, I will have some respect for him I guess. Actually, I have respect for him now.(a little albiet)

I mean, there are only a FEW people in the world, willing, and brave enough to lead this country, its a job most of us couldn't handle, so even if you dont like bush, (or maybe kerry, soon) I think everyone should maybe have some respect for them. It's not like any of us can say we're doing it better! :tongue:

At least they're trying. Nobody's perfect.:)
 
Originally posted by georges
Me silly hahaha.:nono:I am just realist.A dictator is a dictator for me and a terrorist is a terrorist.Peaceful talks don't help with these people. A rethoric question to you "Do you believe all what Moore says?"
Realist? No, you're a cynic that sees the world in black-n-white.

If I believe all what Moore says? Have I ever suggested that? If you check my earlier posts, all I've did is defending his right of free speech, and occassionally laughed at the lame attempts of criticising him. The moment you start using swear-words is the time you start to lose credibility in my book. It just proves you've run out of arguments, if you feel you have to resort to swear-words and insults. To equal critisism against a country's politics with hate is just ridiculous. Moore criticizes Bush, and because of that it means that Moore hates USA? One should be careful with equal the leader of the country with the country itself. USA IS NOT BUSH! Bush is the president of USA, but he is not USA. USA is all the people that lives in the country, and they are all individuals with different opinions. Just because a person critisizes the current politics and the leader of the country, doesn't mean he's any less American, or that he hates the whole US of A.

Delegates Call Moore 'Fat Pig'
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
bibo said:
Flaming you? You really think you´re that important? ;)

There´s a saying where I live, georgie boy. They say "if the shoe fits you, wear it".

I honestly don´t know why I should think about my comment about the idiot again though. It´s true. For me, and idiot is indeed an idiot. I would lie if I would say something different.

Ok an idiot is an idiot for me too.
 
Originally posted by georges
John Kerry claims the VVAW never attacked average soldiers of the Vietnam war. Yet this flyer published by John Kerry says otherwise.
Well, first, the VVAW couldn't become VVAWs until after the war, because it's a abbreviation for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and a veteran you become when your duty is over. So lets call them American soldiers.

The flier says noting at all of the things you claim it does.

Where in that flier does it say that VVAW (correction: American soldiers) never attacked average soldiers? With "average soldiers" I hope you mean enemy soldiers, because friendly soldiers can also be "average".

If you look on the flier it also says MIGHT. That the American soldier MIGHT do those things. Doesn't mean that ALL does. But it does mean that some might have.

It says that American soldiers might have done those authrocities on the flier, nothing about that VVAW (correction: American soldiers) never attacks average (correction: enemy) soldiers.

Read more carefully the next time before you jump to conclusions.
 

Brino

Banned
Dolman said:
How do you know who is more dangerous than who? It is pathetic how you and everyone else against bush put ALL the blame on him. Have you ANY idea how many people made the decision to go to war?

It isn't like what he says goes.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. We went to war with iraq. All you democrats are bitching about how we should have gone after osama. Dont you think the United States, one of the most technologically advanced, and 'top of the food chain' countries in the world, HAD A REASON? There is SO much that goes on behind closed doors, its pathetic. Yet you guys watch liberal TV and media, and think we went to war with them for the hell of it.

How hard is this to understand? THERE ARE MANY SECRETS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FROM US....GET OVER IT.

Your right it isnt just Bush making the decisions that's why I'm against this whole administration not just Bush! Your also right about the fact that we went to war with Iraq for a reason but it wasnt terror it was oil. And dont tell me you think Saddam was more dangerous than say Kim Jong of North Korea who actually does have WMD's unlike Saddam!

There are two types of people in the U.S., the type that see's the world as it really is and the type that belives everything their told because it's easier for them. Kerry and people who support him are the type who see it as it really is and I dont need to tell you which one Bush supporters are!

Oh and by the way, I suppose your the kind of person who listens to the bullshit lies spouted out by the conservative media!

The 'economy is so bad now, it is bad for small business' ' arguement is bullshit.

IF the economy is bad, which it isn't, it would be from the aftermath of the clinton administration.

My dad has his own (small) business. NEVER has his business been as good as this year. He is prospering beyond belief. He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)

THEY are all doing GREAT as well. In his line of work, he sees and talks to ALOT of people.

The economy isn't the BEST it's ever been. But it is not NEAR as bad as people talk it up to be.

How can you say the economy is good when job creation is at it's poorest since the great depression!? Just because your dad is doing well doesnt mean the economy is doing well! And I'm getting tired of this bullshit argument that Bush inherited the bad economy from Clinton, what proof do you have to back that up? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. had the largest surplus under Clinton and the largest deficit under Bush, Period!
 
Originally posted by Dolman
There is no way in hell I'm reading all this thread, so I'm just gonna quote a few....

Why does kerry only criticize Bush, and only talk about his purple hearts? :)

Come on, if anyone's beaten a dead horse its Kerry. At least bush is continually talking about something THAT HAS SOME IMPORTANCE. If we're at war, then I dont have a problem with the pres. talking about it. Seems like a pretty legit thing to talk about, right? :)
Strange, what have you read, when you only can find Kerry's Bush criticisism and purple hearts? I've read that he wants more jobs, better economy, a safer world, etcetra, etcetra.

If we compare with Bush, which things do you remember Bush having talked about, except for War and Family? Oh yes, I forgot the "protection of marriage", which means that only heterosexuals are allowed to marry, and homosexuals are discriminated... Except for those things? Well, I guess I forgot the flying he did in the National Guard... Anything more I've forgotten? My point is that he tries his very best to make people forget his Economy and Enviromental politics, and other politics he's failed in. His foreign politics is quite a failure too. He started a new cold war, this time with China, when an American spy-plane collided with a Chinese plane, that crashed and the pilot died. He let the peace process in the Middle East fall apart, which resulted in some of the worst massacres between Israelians and Palestinians that the world has known. He started a new cold war with Russia by actively prepare to cancel the ABM-treaty, from the 1970s, about a restriction of strategic missile-defense. He extinguished all hope to lessen the tension with North Korea, which means that the mass-starvation will continue, and also that he know also wants nuclear weapons, maybe he already has some, and if he had they would be able to reach USA, which Iraq's so-called "weapons of mass-destruction" never would be able to do if they had existed.

Do I need to continue? I have more examples.
Originally posted by Dolman
How do you know who is more dangerous than who? It is pathetic how you and everyone else against bush put ALL the blame on him. Have you ANY idea how many people made the decision to go to war?

It isn't like what he says goes.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. We went to war with iraq. All you democrats are bitching about how we should have gone after osama. Dont you think the United States, one of the most technologically advanced, and 'top of the food chain' countries in the world, HAD A REASON? There is SO much that goes on behind closed doors, its pathetic. Yet you guys watch liberal TV and media, and think we went to war with them for the hell of it.

How hard is this to understand? THERE ARE MANY SECRETS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FROM US....GET OVER IT.
Stop smelling the roses, I think you're getting high. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist. You did not take too much offense I hope, I try to keep this debate on such a polite level as it's possible. But some few innocent jokes don't hurt. It's not like I called you any curse and swear words, or gave you a major insult. :))

Bush is the supreme commander, commander-in-chief, that makes it his ultimate responsibility.

I think you've misunderstood us, we do not believe that Bush went to war just for the hell of it, we do believe he had a reason, in fact he had many reasons, but many of them were
A) False
B) Greedy
C) Hateful
Originally posted by Dolman
The 'economy is so bad now, it is bad for small business' ' arguement is bullshit.

IF the economy is bad, which it isn't, it would be from the aftermath of the clinton administration.

My dad has his own (small) business. NEVER has his business been as good as this year. He is prospering beyond belief. He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)

THEY are all doing GREAT as well. In his line of work, he sees and talks to ALOT of people.

The economy isn't the BEST it's ever been. But it is not NEAR as bad as people talk it up to be.
The thing here is to be able to tell apart the government's economy, and the over-all economy for the country. You can't only see it from your dad's businesses viewpoint. Since when has Pizza Hut been a "small business". It was quite a long time ago. I'm sure he probably meets a lot of people, but which people were they? Those at the expensive restaurants? When working you can't see those that are unemployed, because guess what, they aren't there.

If you live in a country where some have to have two jobs each to make their economy go around, I would call it a quite crappy economy. In most countries in Europe you'll do fine with just one job, because the wages/salaries are high enough, and the tax money pays for much of the other essentials.
 
Originally posted by Dolman
True as well, but rather than bitching at and placing blame on ONE person (the president), I'm going to trust the decisions my country makes.

They are obviously more informed than I am, and know a better path to take then I do, so I'm going to let them to their job.
What is the damn point of having a democracy, and free elections, if you're gonna just implicitly follow the leaders, believing they know everything better than you? Why not just give away your right to vote, while you're at it, and let them rule forever?
Originally posted by Dolman
Im not going to say I hate kerry, cause I dont really hate many people, but I really dont like him. BUT if he gets into office, I will have some respect for him I guess. Actually, I have respect for him now.(a little albiet)

I mean, there are only a FEW people in the world, willing, and brave enough to lead this country, its a job most of us couldn't handle, so even if you dont like bush, (or maybe kerry, soon) I think everyone should maybe have some respect for them. It's not like any of us can say we're doing it better! :tongue:

At least they're trying. Nobody's perfect. :)
Actually I do believe I could handle that job, and I do believe I could do it better. ;) :tongue:

But I'm not born in USA, so I'm not allowed to become the president of USA, unless they change that law...
 
Brino: In case you havent noticed, there is VERY little conservative media. Fox on TV, and 2 shows on AM radio. whoop de fucking doo.


I'm not an expert, but I can easily see how something that clinton did, could take a couple years to 'take effect'.

You think these changes happen overnight? How do you know some of the economies problems the last few years aren't a result of clinton?




Starman-- WE ALL know that kerry is flaunting the purple hearts thing. Period. probably 40% of what I've heard about/from kerry is about that.



"and homosexuals are discriminated"

How did bush discriminate them? They are trying to change and do something that conflicts with the Bible's views, and the Constitution. I am not pro gay at all. I dont hate the homosexuals, but I dont think they should be allowed to be 'married'. I dont mind giving them the benifits of marraige as much as I mind them getting the term 'marraige' :) I hate the fact that they are trying to change laws and beliefs to fit their sexuality. Anway...thats a different subject.


hahah, the roses thing doesn't bother me. I actually have some respect for you knowing you dont take this shit so seriously you cant joke about it to:D

"I think you've misunderstood us, we do not believe that Bush went to war just for the hell of it, we do believe he had a reason, in fact he had many reasons, but many of them were
A) False
B) Greedy
C) Hateful"

Why do you think this, and how do you know any of this? He probably hates seeing his/our troops getting killed as much if not more than anyone here.

Thats precisely why I know he had a good reason to do what he did. Like I said, I'm sure there is ALOT we dont know. From what I DO know, I think the war was a good cause, and I'm sure if I knew everything behind it I would agree with it even more.

"Since when has Pizza Hut been a "small business""

I didn't say it was.....??:confused:


I realise that just because the economy around me seems good, it might not be like that everywhere. This is a part of politics im brushed up on the least, and care about the least. And I think there are so many factors involved that I'm not going to blame the economy on any president.



I dont agree with everything Bush does, but I dont see 'phony' when I look at him, like I do at Kerry.

So, imo, bush is the best decision.
 
Starman said:
What is the damn point of having a democracy, and free elections, if you're gonna just implicitly follow the leaders, believing they know everything better than you? Why not just give away your right to vote, while you're at it, and let them rule forever?


Well, the point is no matter WHO is president, there is going to be alot of stuff the public doesn't know. I have realised that, and gotten over it. I am now moved on with my life.....

THAT, is why I trust their decisions when war is concerned.

Bush got yelled at for going to war. If kerry was president instead, and DIDNT go to war, HE would have gotten shit too.

That is what happens in war. You get a divided nation, but what can you do....


BTW- no offense, but I dont think there is any way you would be better than Bush. :) None of us realise what the presidents job consists of. Im sure its not easy AT ALL, which is why so few people want the duty.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Nice job dolman:hatsoff::thumbsup:

regards

georges:georges:
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0903/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_poll_3&sid=96378798

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) leads Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), 52 percent to 41 percent, while independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) got 3 percent in a national poll taken during the Republican National Convention that ended Thursday.

The Time magazine poll of 926 likely voters was taken Aug. 31-Sept 2, during the convention and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Bush had 46 percent, Kerry had 44 percent and Nader 5 percent in a Time poll taken just before the convention

Some good economic news, heard this on the radio today:
-unemployment down to 5.4%
-144,000 new jobs added last month
-highest home ownership in history (70% of Americans)
-low mortgage and interest rates
-73,000 jobs added in July
-payrolls have grown 12 straight months
All good news for Americans, all bad news for John Kerry.

IMO, this has been helped by the tax cuts, among other things, as well as a natural rebound after a 9/11-enhanced slowdown. Continuing economic challenges include high energy and healthcare costs, the deficit, some trade squabbles, and the still-lagging economic performance of some of our biggest trading partners.

To check out a more in-depth economic analysis, try this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm543.cfm
 
Ranger:

You wrote:
"Here is a web site about your heros. You ought to be proud of them. Keep in mind that he thinks that you are stupid."

No, I'm sure Moore would find someone as thoughtful as Brino a breath of fresh air. I know I do. He's one of the "80 million or so" that Moore speaks of.

And the quotes don't need to be disputed in my mind. You're right, Moore said them. And he's right. Next?...

Doleman: I agree wholeheartedly that the presidency is a much more difficult job TO DO WELL than the average person acknowledges. But a good job os what we should certainly expect, shouldn't we?

Now let's see, by what measure do we determine a job well done? Security? Worst attack in the history of the country? On Bush's watch. Biggest deficit ever? On Bush's watch, after inheriting the largest surplus ever. Largest tax break for people making more than $200K per year? On Bush's watch. Worst standing in the world community in our history, largest number of international treaties dissolved and a withdrawal from the world court? On Bush's watch. Only time we've ever invaded another country pre-emptively? On Bush's watch. Only time in the recorded history of western civilization that a country cut taxes while at war? On Bush's watch. Largest corporate failures ever (Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldnet, etc)? On Bush's watch. Highest number of personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period? On Bush's watch.

He and his administration have never hit a single economic projection -- his previous budgets projected a surplus by 2004. We just had the single largest deficit in any single year. As with the job numbers, they're constantly going back and changing growth figures downward months after their initial inflated announcements, which still don't hit their original targets.

Improving unemployment figures are complete bullshit. If your unemployment runs out, and you still don't have a job, you just are no longer included in the figures. You aren't employed, but you don't get counted!

He's the first president to enter the office with a criminal record.
Apporinted more convicted criminals to public office than any other president. Set the record for most campaign trips by a sitting president. And Mr. Small Government Conservative built the largest bureaucracy in the history of the country. (The potential money pit that is Homeland Security.)

Yet still we can't seem to catch Osama Bin Laden, nor the folks behind the Anthrax scare. And along the way he did everything in his power to prevent the 911 Commission -- toothless as it was -- from ever investigating the greatest security failure in the history of our country.

Boy, I'd hate to think that we'd lose all this goodness if Kerry got elected. What's left? Maybe the moon would fall out of it's orbit and crash into the earth?

Re: Your comments about divided nation in war/what can you do?

With the exception of the Japanese Americans who were thrown into camps, the vast majority of America supported WWII. Reason: Justifiable action. Americans started getting a little more questioning when it's government started invading countries for less tangible reasons (see Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and a host of other official "police actions" and CIA operations.)

Past deadly debacles have taught us well. The majority of polled Americans -- who are one heck of a lot more likely to be war cheerleaders in the first place than the silent, underclass majority who don't show up on the right lists to get called but who end up catching bullets in the field -- either want no part of this war, or feel it is at the very least making us LESS safe in the long run and that they were mislead by the current administration. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (One of my favorite bookmarks. Any time you see a pundit or newscaster use a poll figure, jump right there and catch them in their spin. Tangent: Here's the page for the presidential race: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm Notice that the most recent polls have been taken during the Repub convention and they are now arguably garnering the biggest bounce they'll get. Across all preferences, after weeks of Kerry leading substantially, Bush scores higher in 16, Kerry in 15, with 4 ties. Most interesting to me is that when asked if George Bush deserves a second term, REGARDLESS of who is running against him, Americans say "no" more often then "yes".)

Re: What can you do?
Try not invading countries with justification that turns out to be all lies. Oh, and the newest one... Remember that guy Bin Laden? Turns out Osama Bin Laden might just not have had the wherewithall to be behind 911. So I guess we invaded Afghanastan for no reason, too. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/02/binladen.wealth.ap/index.html (And the guy was supposedly on dialysis when we started blowing up a mountain range to get to him. Unless we were complete fuckups and let him get to an area developed enough to provide such treatment, he's dead now. If you're a conspiracy/coincidence theorist, you think we have him right now. Thank goodness we got Saddam -- who we created and financed and encouraged to use chemical weapons against the Iranians. And keep in mind our military didn't find him, either. He was handed over by "an un-named group". Contractors?)

RE: ""no conservative media".
Your comment is perhaps not as well informed as it could be. See http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/ , http://mediamatters.org/, or about 100 other links at http://www.free-porn-vid.com/extreme_democracy/index.html The "liberal" media is a myth. There's also a thread here that I think Parker started a about "conservative-vs-liberal" media. Bottom line, AM radio is dominated by Republicans. Limbaugh, Hannity, OReilly, Savage, Liddy, et al. General Electric, one of the largest defense manufacturers owns NBC. The ten largest media conglomerates dominate the total message, and their message is anything but liberal. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020107&s=miller

Re: Gay Marriage And The Constitution.
Please show us where in the constitution it says that we can't let gay folks marry? Bush's role in trying to amend the constitution to EXCLUDE a group is a first in our history. But I will agree with you that the hole thing could be settled by simply giving the union another name with the same rights as marriage. And I'm sorry, but I just LOVE the fact that one of Cheney's kids is gay. Notice she wasn't on the stage when Cheney did the whole "family" display after his speech at the RNC?

RE: They Keep Secrets/Get Over It.
Dude, I for one will NEVER "get over" a government keeping secrets from it's people. It's the main reason why the founding fathers came up with the First Amendment. So that the press could DO IT'S DUTY AND GET THE TRUTH. Allowing any administration to keep secrets from you is the first step to totalitarianism. Of course, George II wouldn't mind that, so long as, in his words, he's the dictator.

I'm just glad that Zell Miller self destructed in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews after his downright bizarre speech. Anybody else see that?

And lastly, since this is a Michael Moore thread and all, at least the guy had the guts to stand his ground against an entire auditorium filled with angry, aggressive opponents at the RNC. Seriously, have any of us had several thousand people make the same kind of noise you hear in the tape of McCain's speech and not fled for cover? And what the guy had to go through to get in the door -- when he had totally legitimate press credentials -- is downright frightening. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=152

Sorry this was so long. Got a brain cramp and couldn't quit.

Peace, health, and prosperity for all, and thanks to everyone for keeping things lively!

:glugglug:
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
Hey Dolman here's where you said your dad has his own small business. Just thought I'd let you know!
What are you trying to prove by using his sentence?
I would like to know.
 

Brino

Banned
Dolman said:
Brino: In case you havent noticed, there is VERY little conservative media. Fox on TV, and 2 shows on AM radio. whoop de fucking doo.

True but theres very little liberal media as well you just like to think that all media is liberal when it's not!


I'm not an expert, but I can easily see how something that clinton did, could take a couple years to 'take effect'.

You think these changes happen overnight? How do you know some of the economies problems the last few years aren't a result of clinton?

Dont you think that Bush's changing policies had something to do with the economy. We'll never know if Clintons policies had stayed in affect whether the economy would have gotten as bad as it is under Bush or whether it would keep on growing as it did under Clinton. If you read threw some of the political threads on the board you'll see that under Clintons presidency and policies the economy was good but under Bush Sr. and Jr.'s policies the economy was bad. It's not a great leap of logic to know that it was the Bush policies not Clinton policies that made the economy bad.

How did bush discriminate them? They are trying to change and do something that conflicts with the Bible's views, and the Constitution. I am not pro gay at all. I dont hate the homosexuals, but I dont think they should be allowed to be 'married'. I dont mind giving them the benifits of marraige as much as I mind them getting the term 'marraige' :) I hate the fact that they are trying to change laws and beliefs to fit their sexuality. Anway...thats a different subject.

Religon and Government are not supposed to have anything to do with each other. The argument that gay marriage goes against the bible's views has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is not a religon, it is practiced by everybody of every religon and belief and the fact that some religons prohibit gay marriage should have nothing to do with whether gays can get married or not. How does gays getting married affect you? Does it harm you in any way? No! So why not let them get married!? These people who say that gays cant get married because it goes against the bible's view are just trying to force their religious beliefs onto others! Not every gay is a christian so why should christian views be forced onto them?
 
Brino said:
Hey Dolman here's where you said your dad has his own small business. Just thought I'd let you know!

Yes, that is true. lol

BUT, my dad's small business, is not pizza hut, as starman thought.

I stated that my dad WORKED at places like pizza hut. Meaning if anything quits working, AC, coolers, ovens, whatever, they call my dad to have it fixed.


Foxfilm: You have by far made the best post against Bush I have seen yet. I dont have the time to reply to your post right now, (fucking long!) but I'll try to come back sometime later.
 

Brino

Banned
georges said:
What are you trying to prove by using his sentence?
I would like to know.

Dolman said here that he didnt say his father owned a small business.

Dolman said:
"Since when has Pizza Hut been a "small business""

I didn't say it was.....??
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
Dolman said here that he didnt say his father owned a small business.

yes and ? everyone can make mistakes, none is perfect.
 
Top