Ermm.. that article isn't exactly credible. Like someone mentioned earlier, the author uses some form of insult or name calling every other paragraph. And of course, just because someone liberal criticizes someone liberal - doesn't mean he's right.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

No, actually that's a load of crap. I compared my income statements and made virtually the same amount in the past 3 years, less than $200 off between them. The difference is that Bush decided to screw the lower class out of taxes.

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

Look at how much you paid in taxes over those 3 years, not how much your refund was. Refund size is completely meaningless.

Bush never made a connection between Iraq and 9/11, he did however make the connection between Iraq and Al Quada. The 9/11 comission has evidence linking them, but you will never hear that from the liberal media. Moore takes thigs WAY out of context, and bends the truth everywhere, trying to shove his liberal propaganda down America's throat.
Reality is a ***** for liberals. Iraq was a threat.

[This message has been edited by finity5 (edited June 22, 2004).]

Same thing. All 3 years I made pretty much the same amount of money, maybe $200-$300 off (not a huge difference), and all 3 years I got taxed roughly $875. Year one I got $600 or so back, year 2 $375 and year 3 only $156.

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

Michael Moore is "trying to shove his liberal propaganda down America's throat." is he? I am so sick of this. What makes you think that the conservatives are innocent of propaganda? Michael Moore has to make documentaries like he does to get people's attention. Why would he make up stuff like that? I believe that Moore is conservative in nature, not Liberal, but he knows when something's wrong, and when your president LIES to you like that, you should probably say to yourself "oh wow" not "liberal propaganda."
Yes, I am a Liberal-minded person, but I don't live in America. I'm Australian, but the conservatives here are just following Bush like a lost puppy and it sickens me.
I am guessing also that the majority of conservatives in this forum are Christians and were sad when Reagan died recently.
Look I'm not trying to tell you what to think, but look at it from Moore's perspective. You don't make a documentary to make money or gain media attention. You make a documentary to make a point. Yes, he extrapolated truths in Bowling For Colombine, but the overall message he got across was good, was it not? Do not call him a liar just because he is saying things that you don't like. Look at the evidence, do the research and judge for yourself how respectable your presidents are. Remember that Bush isn't the most intelligent man in America, nor was Reagan. Reagan once said that trees create more pollution than cars! Think about it.

I don't see the point you're trying to make with this particular bit, but I agree with the rest.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

"Look! Killer trees!"




------------------
Wake up, rise and shine, Gotta take another pint, Dig heads and watch out for the night.

Schming & Emon: Make an effort to read the entire thread or do not post at all. You two and others are simply posting gibberish that has no relevance to my posts. You are taking one thing I said and trying to make several idiotic accusations out of it -- none of which are true.

Action against a single president is what I have been addressing, not action against the government.

No, I said I do not think they should make movies that bash the president in office. IE. -- They can bash Bush when he leaves office but not the next president to enter the office. Not liking and not allowing? That's random gibberish. No where have I have mentioned both terms. I also did not say a damn thing about not bashing the government. The rest of your post irrelevant. OR are you implying that it should be applicable to a single president and assassinations should be legal?

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited June 23, 2004).]

Uh... actually i'd say there's no better time to "bash" Bush than now, before the elections. What you say goes against logic, because you want to know what a president did wrong so you don't vote him in again. Oh PLEASE don't vote Bush in again!!!

Because Christians are all liberal-hating kill-joys who would put up the first guy who supports their beliefs on a pedastal. Duh.

A lot of you seem to be under the mistaken impression that if someone dislikes Moore, they automatically support Bush in everything he does; this is not true. I don't like Bush. Perhaps the best thing I think he did while in office (aside from kicking out Saddam) was the African AIDS assistance, but that seems to have somewhat been dropped by the media in favor of covering Iraq. My fear is that, should he be re-elected this next term, there's not the worry of re-election to restrain him.

But I digress. Some of you should learn to think a bit and discover - *gasp* - that someone can dislike Michael Moore, Kerry, and Bush!

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

What the hell? So what you're saying is "Sure, he MADE FACTS UP, but his point was still good and we shouldn't call him a liar because of that." The fact that he extrapolated facts PROVE he's a liar, because he presented them *As* facts. He misled the audience willingly and intentionally. He lied. I can make up all the facts I want to back up my position, but in the end, all I have is a position and no proof.

Doesn't sound like a documentary to me. But since I call him a liar, you're going to say that I only say that because I don't like what he says.

No. Wrong. I say that because the *real* facts, (not the ones that are in the fictitious world Moore is a self professed inhabitant of), point to the conclusion that he is one!

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

Yeah, I dislike Kerry as well, but I hate Bush. Kerry has my vote. Or I'll go third party.

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

I did read the entire thread before I posted anything. I saw your idiotic statement that US citizens should not criticize the president in office and should not be allowed to make movies criticizing the current president, followed by much editing, backpedaling, and weak follow-ups on your part.

Soul_Blade made a great point here, although he didnt really say it so eloquently. The people deserve to know what the president is doing so that we can hold him responsible. He has a responsibility to the American people and if he is not fulfilling that responsibility or is abusing the power of his office then we have the right to take action against him, either in the election or through the impeachment process.

I dont like Bush or Kerry.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

Please. And you just said, only the president in office? But just there you said ANY of our presidents. I didn't know you could have more than one president in office at the same time.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

I can read, Emon. I didn't say I didn't say one of them. You implied that I was contradicting myself. I suppose we had a misunderstanding there. In any case, it is was I think. It is not something you have to adopt.

Exactly, Emon. I said any of our presidents. Meaning, I don't think 'bashing' should be allowed at that magnitude while Bush is in office. However, after he leaves office is a different story. Same goes for all future presidents. Understand yet?

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited June 23, 2004).]

Apparently, you did not. I said I don't think he should be critcized by use of movies while in office and only that. I did not say people should not be allowed to criticize altogether.

BTW, my editing came immediately after the post to fix grammatical mistakes. I'm sorry if you find my effort to make my posts readable inconvenient. And I don't know what you mean by backpedaling but I'm sure I have not done so if it is considered something negative.

On Soul_Blade's comment: That is what the news is for. Also, by all means, take the action of impeachment against a president if you find it necessary. Impeachment is not the irrational action I was discussing.

I'm going to withdraw myself from this discussion at this time...Just because I have more important stuff to worry about in the next week or so. My medicine is going to be making me cranky starting tomorrow.

I as well, there's no point in debating with someone who says something, then says he didn't say it, then says he didn't say what he didn't say, it confuses me.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

[This message has been edited by Emon (edited June 23, 2004).]

[edit] Nevermind
------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited June 23, 2004).]

Yeah, because massassi debates aren't ever like this.

------------------
"She turned me into a newt!"
Pause
"Well I got better..."

Actually, a comission apointed by President Bush HIMSELF stated that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

Well that made the entire war on Iraq completely useless... good work.

------------------
<Outlaw_Torn> you mean your related to that damned sasquatch, Mech?
<MechWarrior> Lets just say the part of the family tree that does fork has bossy the goat in it.

<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?

Okay, so if I understand your mangled posts, you're mad because you only pay "roughly" $875 a year in taxes and that those that pay THOUSANDS get their rates lowered? Dude, sorry but you'll have to earn less if you want a completely free ride. There's a goal for you.

The fact is that more people in America today pay ZERO in federal taxes as a result of Bush's tax cuts. EVERYONE saw their rates lowered. These are facts.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Wrong. That's what the media is saying. If you read the report itself, it says that IRaq did not help plan or carry out the attacks on the United States. NOT that there was not a contact there. Iraq didn't like to get it's hands dirty.

Up until recently, that is. Keep in mind, Saddam was the *only* regime in the world that openly applauded Osama and the 9-11 attacks, and vowed that it was only the first of a wave of vengeance. The only one.

Also, check this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm

Saddam was planning something himself! BEFORE the war! Ha ha! Isn't that exciting? Putin only didn't support the war because Saddam wasn't directly involved in 9-11 (something Bush/Cheney have never said, btw). But the fact that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks (according to someone that didn't support the war!) is enough reason for me to support taking him out. That makes him a threat.

Saddam was known to have WMDs. Clinton said so in '98. Bush saw 9-11. Bush wanted to preempt another one from taking place. Putin learns Iraq is planning another 9-11! Bush takes action. Folks, this was not a revenge war. This was a preemptive strike against a horror the United States had already seen, and we had credible evidence that it was possibly coming again.

Oh, but I keep forgetting. Saddam wasn't a threat.

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

And Putin only felt like mentioning it now? Not 6 months ago? Not a year and a half ago? Not 2 and a half years ago when the argument was still undecided. That and he's provided absolutely zilch to back this up?


Saddam wasn't *known* to have had WMD's, or some would have been found, Saddam was alleged to have WMD's. Little clinton-era evidence was used in support of the claims for invading Iraq, it was mainly Iraqi National Congress evidence. ie Mobile Weapons Trailors.

Char, you're stretching so far I'm shocked your mind hasn't snapped from the strain. In the absence of any evidence of any WMDs, cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq, or even US intelligence suggesting Iraqi terrorist threats, you desperately cling to the carefully measured Machiavellian PR release from a horrible corrupt foreign leader.

Look here. Isn't that odd. The State Department has no clue what Putin is talking about. Oh, wait. The White House also refuses to collaborate Putin's claim. God knows what sort of bizarre political games are being played, but the bottom line is that this is not the casus belli you've been scrabbling for ever since the whole WMD thing fell though. It's not even reputable.

Ah, good old massassi political debates. This thread has gotten off track hasn't it?

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

I wonder if all those dead Kurds alledge Saddam had WMDs? Oh well, the dead tell no tales.

Oh, I forgot. There's no proof that he ever gassed his own people. How conveinent.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Ahh... I just took your statement of



to mean anything critical of the president. The word 'things' can have many meanings and I apologize for misunderstanding you, although I still believe your views are totally wrong and unAmerican.



------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

I was under the impression that the gas of choice was frequently used by the Iranians, not Iraqis.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

See, I love this bit... this is the part where the flames settle a bit and you really can't tell who's being sarcastic and who's being serious - Then right after that people will start misinterpreting eachother's words and the flames arise again...

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

STFU n00b!



------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

What exactly is the proof that incriminates the Ba'ath party?

And anyway, it's not like they would have randomly gassed some village on a whim.
It was during the Iraq-Iran war. If it were Iraq that gassed them, it would have been to stop Iranian troops from occupying the area. Kurdish civilian fatalities were 'collateral damage'. Yes I hate that phrase too, but the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths are 'acceptable' collateral damage and the Kurdish civilian deaths are not acceptable collateral damage?
And on a more picky legal note, I don't see why Saddam is being tried for 'genocide'. This wasn't ethnic cleansing. The charge should be 'war crimes' or some such.

"Because Christians are all liberal-hating kill-joys who would put up the first guy who supports their beliefs on a pedastal. Duh."
Did I say that? NO! I never said all christians are like that but you just need to look at the political beliefs that the Republicans hold and those that the evangelists preach and you will notice a degree of collaberation. Basically, a Republican cannot run as a candidate for president unless they are christian and willing to help the cause of forcing a religion-based political agenda on the american people. Call me a conspiracy nut if you like, but the sorts of things i've seen on television about this stuff scare me.
Also, Moore did not LIE. I never said he LIED. I said he extrapolated truths, which is taking a fact and making it mean more than it should. This is something that everyone who has ever made a documentary, written an article, given a news report or argued for or against the existence of God, has done. It's a technique for getting a point across. You don't lie, you pick facts and truths that support your cause to make a point.
And if anyone thinks that the news is an effective, unbiased source of information on what is going on in your country, especially from commercial networks, then here's a shock for you- the degree of censorship and blocking of information is excessive to say the least. Wherever you live, you are not going to get the full truth from watching the news that gets paid depending on television ratings. So i contend that a documentary is a more reliable source of truth than the news.

Look- to the majority of Americans I would be the most hated sort of person. I am liberal-minded, I am anti-republican and I am an atheist, but I am entitled to my opinion and there are truths that back up what I have to say as much as anyone else. Don't call someone's work propaganda, or someone's opinion ridiculous without first questioning whether your own beliefs are centered on something unstable. Like Moore, I am simply trying to provide more information on a contraversial topic.

*snuggles with Soul_Blade*

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

Back off, he's mine! >:/

*pulls Schming's hair*

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

I applaud Michael Moore. I consider him to be one of the boldest men when it comes to politics. He gets his message out to open people's eyes. And yes, the majority of his message is truth. If you think that Bush hasn't caused severe damage to this country, then you need to review this country's statistics (particularly, our debt). Rock on Moore, rock on.

------------------
The Editor of bad levels such as:

Battle Ground Oasis The Forgotten Tomb
Office Building Arena
SpacePort Oasis
Wookie Camp
Fade to Black
Thriving Desert