fahrenheit 9/11

[Devils731]

Thats funny, Moore purposefully misleads and often times outright lies, or has a very bad fact checking system, and we should forgive him that.  Bush says Iraq has WMD's, which much of world agreed with, and he is a liar just because intelligence turned out to be incorrect.  I think there is a huge difference between Moore knowingly misleading and Bush turning out to be incorrect.

There is a whole book on the matter. I'm not talking WMD... I'm saying that if it comes out of George Bush's mouth, it's a lie.

http://www.bushlies.com/

Click on top 10 lies if you will.

As for:

Thats funny, Moore purposefully misleads and often times outright lies, or has a very bad fact checking system, and we should forgive him that.

Sounds very, very, very apt about your president.

After reading those top 10 "lies" I'm not very impressed by these smoking guns.

-Scott

[SueNJ97]

ok... but one make movies and the other one make war

sorry to be so "simple" but... baa

Plenty of Presidents have decided to go to war, Moustic. Including plenty of French Presidents, I'm sure, and I'm really not sure WHAT they told their people at the time. What, exactly, did your President at the time tell you France was doing in Southeast Asia? Or Algeria? What do they tell you they are doing today when French troops topple a Central African regime quietly? It happens, you know. It just doesn't get much press.

Are Bush's lies more costly than Moore's? Yes, in terms of human lives they have been. But when Moore is feted by the artistic community for repetitively saying that everything America stands for is corrupt and no American can contribute anything worthwhile...sorry...I have no time for him. I have no intention of voting for Bush but that doesn't mean I have to endorse the works of Michael Moore.

[Devils731]

Since we all love websites:

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Both good reference points.

-Scott

[Devils731]

ok... but one make movies and the other one make war

sorry to be so "simple" but... baa

Plenty of Presidents have decided to go to war, Moustic. Including plenty of French Presidents, I'm sure, and I'm really not sure WHAT they told their people at the time. What, exactly, did your President at the time tell you France was doing in Southeast Asia? Or Algeria? What do they tell you they are doing today when French troops topple a Central African regime quietly? It happens, you know. It just doesn't get much press.

Are Bush's lies more costly than Moore's? Yes, in terms of human lives they have been. But when Moore is feted by the artistic community for repetitively saying that everything America stands for is corrupt and no American can contribute anything worthwhile...sorry...I have no time for him. I have no intention of voting for Bush but that doesn't mean I have to endorse the works of Michael Moore.

Sue, I think your key point there is why are some people trying to change the topic from Moore's credibility to another thread on how much they hate Bush? We know which people don't like Bush and which do like Bush, lets keep this thread to discussing something new like what we think fo Moore.

-Scott

[ciyenne]

ok... but one make movies and the other one make war

sorry to be so "simple" but... baa

And some make both movies and war...

Does that make them multi-talented?

[LetsGoDevils]

Wasn't impressed with his first movie "Bowling for Columbine" and I have no interest in wasting money to see this latest tripe off the wall film.

[MaddDog]

Moore tends to believe that all Americans are evil, especially Republicans.

Sue, I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, after reading Moore's two books "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country" (did not bother paying for them, took them out of the public library lol). I did get the distinct impression that he detests Bush and right wingers with a passion, but also noticed that he was slamming other presidents and just the way this country operates as a whole. So, I am a bit puzzled as to why he gets so much support from the anti-Bush folk when he seems to be down on America itself!

Edited June 5, 2004 by MaddDog

[Jimmy Leeds]

Go figure.....Fat Boy edits his zany interviews.

Last update: June 4, 2004 at 9:28 AM

Rep. Kennedy pans Michael Moore film editing

Kevin Diaz, Bureau Correspondent

June 4, 2004 KENN0604

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."

Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.

But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).

"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."

A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.

A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."

To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."

[oofrostonoo]

Since we all love websites:

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Both good reference points.

-Scott

those websites are bullsh!t...look at the explanations for how moore lies in BFC......none of them are complete thoughts......very innaccurate

[sheeps]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/127ujhuf.asp

Michael Moore and Me

From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.

by Fred Barnes

05/31/2004, Volume 009, Issue 36

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I

got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France.

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?

I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[sheeps]

"In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.

She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check."

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolum...scenes/bank.htm

-------

"To further the peaceful-Canadian motif, Moore shows us the over-the-counter purchase, no questions asked, of some ammunition in an Ontario Wal-Mart store. The Canadian government has pointed out that if the scene was not faked, such a transaction would be illegal, since the buyer is required to present identification. Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. Moore did not respond to a request from the government's Canadian Firearms Centre to explain whether he staged a fake purchase, edited out the ID request, or broke the law."

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolum...nes/walmart.htm

-------

"Moore said on his website and on various talk shows that 'the title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were at a bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders.' The thing is that they weren't. Both the school and the police have confirmed that the 2 boys skipped class that day. Obviously they had other things to do, planning to get straight and preparation that made bowling class that morning not exactly a priority. Moore later changed his line on the BFC website to read 'The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders.'"

"Moore tells the audience that bowling was 'apparently the last thing they did before the massacre.' Wrong again. Even if the killers didn't skip class, this isn't right. Both Salon.com and the National Review reveal that Bowling class was at 6 A.M. while the killings began around 11 A.M."

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/title.htm

------

But I'm afraid people will, once again, think that I'm "missing the point."

I'm not.

I understand that these mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional, do not negate the majority of the film. I understand that. Believe me.

But the fact is, Moore leaves out crucial facts that would sway the entire film. Moore shows himself walking into a bank and soon thereafter walking out with a gun. He doesn't show that he planned this two months ahead and had already gone through various background checks to be approved. If you're going to say that's meaningless, well, so be it. A licensed firearms dealer with two months of time to do background checks should be able to give someone a gun, sorry. That's legal.

Moore doesn't say that his transaction at Wal-Mart was illegal. And he won't even say if it was really illegal if it was staged when asked. The point is that it was either illegal or staged and yet there is no explanation of that in the film. That's pretty big.

And the title is flawed. No eye witness accounts of either of the boys being there in the morning. The friggin' title. The biggest thing of the movie. The police and school say they weren't + no eye witnesses = they were? Truly Moore needs to work out that addition again.

MY POINT IS, Moore makes movies that millions of people see. And these movies contain flaws in its biggest parts. If you've ever discussed BFC with someone, these three scenes are probably going to be talked about. And yet these three scenes are very, very flawed, either based on a lack of any crucial explanation or just not based on any sound evidence. THAT'S PRETTY BIG.

What I don't like about Moore has NOTHING to do with his political positions or his intent with the film. As a Film Studies geek, my problem has to do with his manipulating of the medium. When documentaries stage scenese - even if it's just one - as Moore staged his paper-signing at the bank, it's a docu-drama, not a documentary. THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN ANY FILM STUDIES BOOK YOU READ. When documentaries purposefully distort the facts or leave out crucial facts - as Moore left out the background checks at the bank or that the Canadian bullet purchase was illegal or staged - it's propaganda, a film aiming to radically alter the audience's opinions. THIS WILL ALSO BE DEFINED IN ANY FILM STUDIES BOOK YOU READ. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about on this.

My second, and more major problem, is that Moore knows all this but he's banking on us - the audience - to be too stupid to understand its flaws. He knew that he would have the overzealous guys like Don who make any mistake out to be total nothing when they are big flaws. And he knew that he'd have the average left-leaning-whatsoever American to believe in what he say, too stupid or lazy to question anything he said.

I believe in questioning everything and everybody, even if you agree with what they say. Otherwise you'll end up like the Germans who followed Hitler because he brought about economic growth.

And third, the fact that he's right. What I find to be the biggest... what should I call it? The biggest hubris about a documentary's audience is that, since everything is presented as fact, the audience walks out as if everything was, indeed, fact. Now if a film was completely fact with every fact backed up my numberous sources - FINE. Wonderful. Amazing. Great. Whatever. But if there are ANY holes - that should be a problem.

In many ways, Moore is the average American guy. And that is the problem. He's not a journalist for CNN or something who needs to be 100% right in order to keep her/his job - his job is not at risk whatsoever because he has enough money to retire right now. He doesn't need to be totally accurate to keep getting money for movies. He has the money. He doesn't have the accuracy. You almost wish he was headed by CNN or something so that he would HAVE to be right.

Anyway. If you don't get my point now, you never will.

[Devils731]

Mr. Sheeps. I couldn't have done it better myself. I don't think Frost will bother reading your posts though, he'll just say its more BS from the people trying to bring down his champion for America.

-Scott

[Don]

You know, I'm at the point of saying I give up, you deserve the world you ask for. I see SOOOOOOOOOOO many web sites attacking Moore, people doing movies about trying to track down Moore an interview him, a movie called "Moore Hates America".

Let's go chapter by chapter of Stupid White Men:

Chapter 1: The election fraud

Chapter 2: The history of George Bush (the DUI, the 3 arrests)

Chapter 3: The increasing tax burder on the lower class while 15 of the top 84 US corporations paid nothing in taxes.

Chapter 4: Continued racism in the US - the average black household income is 61% less than the average white household income

Chapter 5: The need to improve (increase funding) to American public schools

Chapter 6: This chapter is on the need to spread environmental awareness - using less paper (or even recycling that which you do use), reducing gas consumption, the need to ensure our drinking water is safe

Chapter 7: The need for better distribution of power between men and women (how many times has a woman been on the ballot for president or vice president? Women only hold 14% of the seats in Congress, of the top 500 companies in the US, 9 are run by women)

Chapter 8: The mess of US international relations - Isreal, North Korea and we still have huge stockpiles of nukes just in case Russia attacks. (Iraq wasn't mentioned as the book was written pre 9-11)

Chapter 9: Problems in American justice (the war on drugs has gotten out of hand)

Chapter 10: The ineffective opposition (this chapter he rips into Clinton and the Democrats for their 8 years of bumbling)

Chapter 11: The need to again seperate church from state

Chapter 12: A wrap-up and a few things that we can do if we want to be active in these things.

So, let's see, racism, improve schools, protect the environment, better distribution of power between men and women.....

... and so many people work their tails off to discredit him. Obviously people on the right, but also people in the middle and people on the left take time out of their day to discredit Moore.

Let's see:

- The bank scene was staged. The point of the scene: THE BANK GIVES AWAY GUNS FOR OPENING AN ACCOUNT!!!

- The scene about buying ammo in Canada: The point was that you can buy ammunition just the same in Canada - we just don't spend our days shooting each other. So there must be something different about our countries - the abundance of bullets isn't the differing factor.

- The title of the movie - *AFTER THE MOVIE WAS RELEASED* the Colombine police said that their police report was wrong. Moore named the movie after reading the police report assuming it to be valid. But he gets the blame?

Currently I am volunteering for the Green Party, am a long time member of Amnesty International, have 3 foster children in Cameroon and also am doing a lot of videography work (recently I shot footage for a documentry on how hard it is for new immigrants to get started here; my part of the story was about an immigrant who escaped the civil war in Somalia - but has repeatedly been the victim of racism). In the past I've been far more active - a member of the Independant Media Centre (a collection of videographer activists who provide footage to www.indymedia.org), a member of the East Timor Alert Network (a human rights group educating people of the human rights abuses by Indonesia against the people of East Timor, I was Atlantic Canada head of the Canadian University Students Environment Network, I was a working for the Public Interest Research Group Environmental Caucus.... Point: I contribute a LOT of my time, energy and resources (money) into fighting things such as human rights abuses, racism... fighting for environmental protection....

... and it is soooooo frustrating to see soooo many people are dead set against me. If not directly (ie Leeds, Devils731), then indirectly. Those that spend their time discrediting those that speak out on these issues - many of whom are centerists - and even those on the progressive side of things spend 3/4 of their energy bringing other progressives down. Repeatedly I've been on the verge of just giving up. Humanity deserves it's fate - whatever path this takes us. Why am I spending my time volunteering when I could be just as effective home watching Seinfeld re-runs? Why am I giving $150 a month to various charities when I could be spending that on a newer computer? It doesn't make a lick of difference when there are so many people ready to kick you back into your place if you make even an inch of difference. And like I said, it's usually not those on the right that kick you...

So my question is, Sheeps: Now that you've done your internet research, you've done some really good work here to discredit Micheal Moore, what have YOU done today to combat racism, to reduce poverty or to improve the environment? Or do I take it you are against those things?

Edited June 13, 2004 by Don

[Don]

I believe in questioning everything and everybody, even if you agree with what they say.  Otherwise you'll end up like the Germans who followed Hitler because he brought about economic growth.

I missed this line the first time through....

That's fine to question. Absolutely question. Always question. Don't believe everything you see, hear, read.

Here... let me do a little research here... yup, well over half of what you have written in this forum has been about discrediting Moore. You're questioning of things seems to be rather biased. I see nothing here questioning Bill O'Rielly who makes up more sh!t on one show than Moore did in BFC. I see no questioning of Ann Coulter. How about questioning what America is being told by Mike Savage. Maybe I missed those posts. Perhaps you can point them out to me?

There was lots of questioning in Germany. They questioned the political opposition, they questions and ridiculed those that spoke out against the Nazi's, they questioned all media people that had an different viewpoint than Hitler. And they did spend much time questioning what was being told to them by Nazi government in power.

Edited June 12, 2004 by Don

[oofrostonoo]

  Mr. Sheeps.  I couldn't have done it better myself.  I don't think Frost will bother reading your posts though, he'll just say its more BS from the people trying to bring down his champion for America.

-Scott

i read it....I can see how those things can be agrued with and i am not saying they are BS....But he still brings a good point across in all of them...and delivers a good positive message...that has obviously had a huge impact on many people...

Also with those website bowlingfortruth and so on....they many make a few valid (but weak) arguments but for the majortiy of the site they seem to be reaching and really just blowing up sonmthing like it is a huge like....especially how they say the homocide with a gun statistic was invalid....moore explains it on his website and it is very valid.

Edited June 12, 2004 by oofrostonoo

[Devils731]

I believe in questioning everything and everybody, even if you agree with what they say.

[GA Devil]

Don, keep fighting the good fight. You are NOT alone.

Thanks for your last post. It was a good one.

[Don]

You say don't believe everything we see, read, or hear but you do want us to just trust in everything Moore tells us?

No. Absolutely not. My point was (A) you need to question EVERYONE, not just Micheal Moore. As I said, I saw no questioning of Micheal Savage here by Sheeps. (B) By only questioning progressive you are essentially promoting the Republican government. You have to think about what the impact of your condemnation is.

I also don't see how I'm against those that speak out on issues, I'm against those that I feel are wrong on subjects.  It seems its ok for you to feel I'm beating you down by disagreeing with you, yet you are righteous and correct for disagreeing with me.  Thats just silly, by us discussing things it shows we're both concerned on issues.  Of course since I disagree with you I'm automatically oppresive it seems.

I quite realize that yourself and Leeds have a different perspective on things. While I cannot fathom your viewpoint - I can respect it. That we have to fight those on the right to get our points out to the people is a cross we have to bear. That wasn't what is so depressing. What is depressing is how independants, centerist and fellow leftists help with the condemnation of the voices of the left because it's SAFE.

Another thing is, this thread is about Moore, so why should Mr Sheeps feel the need to bring up any question he has done about anyone else?

I said "in this forum" not "in this thread". I did a search of his posts in this forum and the vast majority of his participation in the political forum is to bash Moore.

Also, nice job of equating Mr Sheeps being a concerned citizen with Nazi Germany. 

I didn't bring it up. Sheeps did. He said that if you believe everything you hear, you end up like Nazi Germany. I responded by saying that there was a lot of questioning going on. The voices on the fringe saying that the government was wrong in their actions... those people were questioned endlessly. In the end it was the people trusting their government and not enough independant voices speaking out against the actions of the government that created the Nazi atrocities. The leftist Social Democratic Party opposed Hitlers actions very strongly, but the government propoganda was too strong. The people believed their government and ridiculed those in the SDP. In the end, the opposition, such as the "White Rose Resistance" - an opposition by a group of university students - were simply executed. That hasn't happened in the U.S.. Yet.

[MaddDog]

The way I see it, both a Michael Moore and Anne Coulter are equally bad, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. I agree with a little bit of everything all these TV personalities, movie makers, and writers say... regardless of their political affiliation. I'm a middle of the road independent so I hold views that can be perceived as either liberal or conservative, depending on the issue. But, I am capable of critical thought and have enough sense to not buy the bullsh!t they try to shovel at the masses to promote their agenda if I suspect that it is outright blatant propaganda or false. Unfortunately, many other people in this country or abroad don't always want to invest the effort to question what they get exposed to and therefore assume what this person (Moore, Coulter) says is the gospel.

Don, whoever is in power as far as holding the office is whoever gets blasted. That's the way it always will be... it works BOTH ways for these parties. If a Democrat is President, the Republicans will get in a frenzy, constantly badmouth him, and possibly try to get him impeached (see Clinton). If a Republican is President, the Dems froth at the mouth in a rabid fashion and attempt to make him out to be Hitler (see Bush). The story is obviously somewhere in the middle and NOT at the extremes that the opposing party makes it out to be. As a consequence, I'm disgusted with both major parties and honestly wish that we had a viable third party candiate (Nader will NOT cut it).

There is one thing that perturbs me about the Anti-Bush folk, despite that fact that I am NO Bush fan. I often hear the "ANYONE BUT BUSH" rant and never anything about Kerry's policies, strengths or weaknesses, and so on. Now, to me, I may not care for Bush but I want to know what Kerry can offer that is an IMPROVEMENT in my eyes (the abortion stance is about the ONLY thing that comes to mind) and so far he hasn't convinced me that he's really a better alternative.

[sheeps]

Has there been a post about O'Reilly? Not that I've seen.

And if you're trying to read into my criticism of Moore as me being a right-y, you're dead wrong. I voted for Nader last election and am still satisfied with that vote.

My point, that it seems you'll never get, is that it would be best to be totally factual and not misleading. When the other side can't even criticize what you've done, you've won.

[oofrostonoo]

Has there been a post about O'Reilly? Not that I've seen.

And if you're trying to read into my criticism of Moore as me being a right-y, you're dead wrong. I voted for Nader last election and am still satisfied with that vote.

My point, that it seems you'll never get, is that it would be best to be totally factual and not misleading. When the other side can't even criticize what you've done, you've won.

O'Reilly = Biggest a$$hole on Television.

[sheeps]

As a P.S. Don, I've been to rallies, marches, protests, and the such against racism. I've gotten into three fights because of racism. So to even suggest that I don't care about it is to completely ASSUME something about me that, quite frankly, you have no clue about.

One of the things I liked about this board was that I never revealed my political decisions (I did in the post before this, though). Yes, I'm a progressive that is heavily critical of progressives. My opinion is always going to be that if there are flaws within your group, you need to address those flaws in order to be effective.

[NewarkDevil5]

There needs to be a certain level of consciousness in this country as to what is going on and what I see happening is a conservative government that is attempting to stifle any questions as to their actions in the past 3 and a half years and a liberal side that is scurrying about like chickens with heads cut off trying to figure out where they stand on things. If I believe what I get from NPR, Bush allowed the Sept 11th attack to cause a unification of the country behind him to rise in that moment of emergency and carry out his agenda. If I believe Rush Limbaugh, I get that Bush is our savior and is fighting off the evil liberals who are trying to destroy this country as well as conducting our holy crusade against the evil Muslmis who will eventually take their Jihad over here. Only one question: how come there has yet to be a busbombing in America? How come there are none of the smaller terrorist actions in America that go on in Israel (a country with at least as good an intelligence organization as ours) if we are so much the enemy of Islam? For what its worth, the NPR story makes sense simply based on the actions of our President in the past three and a half years as well as basic human nature which is to look for ways of getting what you want and then implement them. Rush Limbaugh's story doesn't make sense. If the muslim terrorist organizations really wanted to make our life a living hell we'd be experiencing busbombings in Times Square and subway bombings. I find it funny that the same people will say that Sharpe James does only what is best for his own pocket book without a care in the world for Newark, yet when it comes to the President of the USA, a man with far more power to change the course of things for his own personal agenda, there is no possibility of it. One must always take a look at situations and ask the question of "what could they be getting out of this?"

[Don]

Has there been a post about O'Reilly? Not that I've seen.

And if you're trying to read into my criticism of Moore as me being a right-y, you're dead wrong. I voted for Nader last election and am still satisfied with that vote.

My point, that it seems you'll never get, is that it would be best to be totally factual and not misleading. When the other side can't even criticize what you've done, you've won.

That's the thing. The other side is GOING to criticize. They'll find SOMETHING - like laughing about the report that they went bowling that morning - even though that is right IN THE POLICE REPORT. That's what they do. The problem is that the progressive voices are beaten BY FELLOW progressives.

And I didn't assume you were a right-y. In your other posts you stated that you were a "rover". What I said was that by attacking those on the left, you aide and abet those on the right.

As for your P.S., perhaps you are correct. However, when there is public condemnation of the left, from the left, there is far more harm done than good. Conservatives know this and they stick together. See Rush's "Ditto-heads". If they have a problem with something they deal with it on the side. I have never seen a conservative bash in a fellow Republican. They stick together.

Here, let me give you one example from when I was head of the Environmentally Concerned Students Organazation at my university. We were in the middle of negotiations with the university to improve the facilities on campus for more recycling and perhaps composting. In the middle of the negotiations with the university, someone who thought we should be doing more off-campus stuff, out in the community, felt the need to go to the student newspaper and spout about how ineffectual the group was. I went to the newpaper to explain our side - that we were acting locally - on campus - which was in need of improvements. Anyhow, it a huge blow to our credibility, the university cancelled the negotiations "until we got our house in order". Were we defeated by students who didn't want their tuition money going towards a recycling program? Noop. We were defeated from within - by someone who felt that they needed to publicly redress our group.

[MaddDog]

Only one question: how come there has yet to be a busbombing in America? How come there are none of the smaller terrorist actions in America that go on in Israel (a country with at least as good an intelligence organization as ours) if we are so much the enemy of Islam?

My guess is that it's because a mere small bombing wouldn't do much to this country, but a MASS MURDER of THOUSANDS (or millions, god forbid) WOULD detrimentally affect the nation. The economy went down the toilet after 9/11 if you recall.... nawww, their plan is to inflict mass casualties since they perceive us as the "Great Satan" and all.

I don't really buy this "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen" crap, though. I guess that means that Slick Willy wanted these Islamic extremists to try to take the WTC down the FIRST time in 1993 (do some people have short memories when it comes to this)? We're just their #1 enemy, but all of Western culture is a threat to their warped values. After they try to dispose of the U.S., EUROPE IS NEXT yet much of Europe seems to want to bury their heads in the sand.

Edited June 13, 2004 by MaddDog