Discussion:
OT: Fahrenheit 9-11 Trailer
(too old to reply)
futureworlds
2004-06-14 16:48:36 UTC
Permalink
See the trailer to be released June 29th:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
Bob Hatch
2004-06-14 16:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Why?
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Skyhooks
2004-06-15 03:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by futureworlds
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
TROLL!!!! This is not the kind of trailer that relates to RORT. This is
a "trailor" (sp?) for a motion picture movie - two horses of different
colours!

Skyhooks
hmardis "aht" uiuc "daught" edu
Ceegamet
2004-06-29 15:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by futureworlds
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
Must be very busy,it was kind of slow
nycop
2004-07-04 14:26:16 UTC
Permalink
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/

USAToday exit rating approval for

Fahrenheit 911

A 73.09%

B 2.79%

C 0.70%

D 9.06%

F 9.37%
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-04 15:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by futureworlds
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
USAToday exit rating approval for
Fahrenheit 911
A 73.09%
B 2.79%
C 0.70%
D 9.06%
F 9.37%
Wooooo Hooooo! Party time! More proof that Democrats are even dumber
than rumored.
LZ
can-nuck
2004-07-04 18:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by futureworlds
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
USAToday exit rating approval for
Fahrenheit 911
A 73.09%
B 2.79%
C 0.70%
D 9.06%
F 9.37%
I rather enjoyed this film. While I think the director embellished the
Pres' quirkyness and poked fun too much (I mean isn't it obvious
sometimes how far out in right field he is) he did make some key
points that I've been talking about to my ultra conservative brother
for months, if not years. Namely, the connections with the sauds, the
oil connections, plus some gems I didn't know about, such as his
connections at the T.A.N.G. I think they did not make a big enough
deal avbout the Veep's connections with Halliburton but then again I'm
surprised the right dominated "censor board" that is our media even
let this picture out. I thought it was great, just the type of movie
to get under the skin of the people who need it most. BRavo!
F.U. Selbst
2004-07-04 19:30:17 UTC
Permalink
The chickenhawks and war whoopers need to see the scene of the Iraqi woman
who just lost her family and house to Rumsfeld's "precision" ordnance. If
this film is propaganda, what was the 24-7 drum beat of the media calling
for war? Why did the cable channels have to show Saddam wearing his evil
feodora shooting his shotgun in the air 10,000 times? Why were the hired
experts used by the cable channels always military or right-wing think tank
talking heads? Why were dissenting views almost never allowed on the air?

Good for Moore for exposing the gutless Demos who were (are) afraid to stand
up against the Neo-Con agenda.

Moore also showed what a crock the revisionists are trying to serve us:
that the administration never said that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda!
See Bush us the two names interchangeably in his war rants.
Post by can-nuck
Post by futureworlds
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
USAToday exit rating approval for
Fahrenheit 911
A 73.09%
B 2.79%
C 0.70%
D 9.06%
F 9.37%
I rather enjoyed this film. While I think the director embellished the
Pres' quirkyness and poked fun too much (I mean isn't it obvious
sometimes how far out in right field he is) he did make some key
points that I've been talking about to my ultra conservative brother
for months, if not years. Namely, the connections with the sauds, the
oil connections, plus some gems I didn't know about, such as his
connections at the T.A.N.G. I think they did not make a big enough
deal avbout the Veep's connections with Halliburton but then again I'm
surprised the right dominated "censor board" that is our media even
let this picture out. I thought it was great, just the type of movie
to get under the skin of the people who need it most. BRavo!
canoli
2004-07-04 19:59:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:30:17 GMT, " F.U. Selbst"
Post by F.U. Selbst
The chickenhawks and war whoopers need to see the scene of the Iraqi woman
who just lost her family and house to Rumsfeld's "precision" ordnance.
The pacifists and liberal leftists need to see videos of the anguished
survivors of 9/11victims, or better yet, the last moments of those who
threw themselves out of upper WTC windows, preferring to commit
suicide than be burnt alive.

Or if that's not enough pathos for you, take a look at the video of
the Palestinian woman who lost her family and house to Israeli
bulldozers, or even the American woman deliberately crushed to death
by yet another Israeli bulldozer.

The film has much in common with pornography, in that it sets out to
screw the President by selective, one-sided content: the other person
getting screwed is the person who sees and believes the Fonda-like
fantasy.

Canoli
bill horne
2004-07-04 20:21:03 UTC
Permalink
canoli wrote:

<snipped>
Post by canoli
Canoli
I know it's hard to believe, and probably even harder to accept, but I
agree with everything you wrote except the parts I didn't snip.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-04 21:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by F.U. Selbst
The chickenhawks and war whoopers need to see the scene of the Iraqi woman
who just lost her family and house to Rumsfeld's "precision" ordnance.
Why no film of Clinton's CIA arranging to bomb the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade? Those who are doves now were the war whoopers then.
LZ
Carl A.
2004-07-04 21:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by F.U. Selbst
The chickenhawks and war whoopers need to see the scene of the Iraqi woman
who just lost her family and house to Rumsfeld's "precision"
ordnance.
Post by Lone Haranguer
Why no film of Clinton's CIA arranging to bomb the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade? Those who are doves now were the war whoopers then.
LZ
I haven't (and won't) spend money to see th movie -- but tell me, are
there some really close close-ups of the faces of people jumping off
the WTC? I might recognize a few friends and neighbors.

And does he show my absolutely favorite video of the Palestine
reaction to the WTC tragedy -- you know, the pot-ugly fat woman
dancing in the street?
--
Carl A. in FL
Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
canoli
2004-07-04 22:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl A.
And does he show my absolutely favorite video of the Palestine
reaction to the WTC tragedy -- you know, the pot-ugly fat woman
dancing in the street?
Gee, imagine that: an Arab woman living in occupied Palestine under
Israeli-imposed restrictions, celebrating an attack on the ally and
supporter of her enemy.

Of course, she might be slightly biased, having watched neighborhood
homes specifically targeted and demolished. There have been a number
of candidates for a favorite video, but the outstanding one is of the
woman wailing in grief as she picks through the rubble of her
bulldozed house, searching for her grandfather killed in the
demolition.

Michael Moore may be an accomplished propagandist, but when it comes
to up close and personal he's looking through the wrong end of the
telescope.

Canoli
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-05 01:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl A.
I haven't (and won't) spend money to see th movie -- but tell me, are
there some really close close-ups of the faces of people jumping off
the WTC? I might recognize a few friends and neighbors.
I don't go to movies.

I've never seen any close-ups of those who jumped but some of the shots
were pretty clear and I'm sure film specialists could blow them up.
Post by Carl A.
And does he show my absolutely favorite video of the Palestine
reaction to the WTC tragedy -- you know, the pot-ugly fat woman
dancing in the street?
Here in central MN, they had Somalis working in a freezer plant that
cheered and a brawl broke out. Police had to be called. An article
appeared in a local Gannett-owned (USA Today) newspaper but it's missing
from the archives.

Strange, eh? Smells like liberal censorship to me.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-04 20:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
Post by nycop
Fahrenheit 911
I rather enjoyed this film.
Idiots are easily amused.
LZ
can-nuck
2004-07-05 04:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
Post by nycop
Fahrenheit 911
I rather enjoyed this film.
Idiots are easily amused.
LZ
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot? Because I saw
a movie I liked and said so, and most likely that conflicts with your
point of view. Hey its the American way to disagree. So be it. I still
think it was a very good although not perfect movie.

I have no dissillusions that the movie is a glorified propoganda
piece. Then again so has the "reasons" for us going to war in Iraq and
not getting OBL in the first place an even bigger bucket of propoganda
bullshit. You may not like Michael Moore, but at least he had the guts
to make the movie.

The idea that this country has a "volunteer" army is laughable as
well. It's obvious only the poor people in this country enlist, as
there is no other jobs to be had in some places of the country.

I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
Bob Hatch
2004-07-05 06:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Your post's are making it pretty obvious.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Will Sill
2004-07-05 11:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Your posts are making it pretty obvious.
To be fair, it is POSSIBLE that you're not actually an idiot. It
could be that you are allowing a moron to use your ID, or that you
suffer from keyboard dyslexia and do not read the drivel you post. So
we can't be sure you are personally an idiot.

One thing is NOT in serious question among intelligent readers: your
posts give the appearance of having been written by an idiot.

Will Sill
In the US, anyone can express a point of view.
Sadly, there is no requirement that views be
informed, honest, useful or even logical. If
there was, most Democrats would be silenced.
bill horne
2004-07-05 19:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Sill
One thing is NOT in serious question among intelligent readers: your
posts give the appearance of having been written by an idiot.
Will Sill
Well, as I've been recently reminded, in here, appearance is everything.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
can-nuck
2004-07-05 15:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hatch
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Your post's are making it pretty obvious.
Yeah, I stated that I liked a controversial film. I guess because it
flies in the face of the conservative right's point of view that makes
me an idiot. YMMV.

We'll see in November, when Kerry wins, what kind of tune you and your
ilk will be crying. Good news is, Kerry doesn't have any brothers as
governonrs, who will help fix the election, so at least it will be a
fair win unlike the coronation of King George II that happened in
2000. But of course, when he wins, there will be nothing but endless
caterwauling by the conservatives here.

Oh, the irony of it all....
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-05 15:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
Oh, the irony of it all....
The brain-dead call was right on the money. Idiot was a compliment.
LZ
Bob Hatch
2004-07-05 16:00:51 UTC
Permalink
"can-nuck" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com
.
Post by can-nuck
Yeah, I stated that I liked a controversial film. I guess because it
flies in the face of the conservative right's point of view that makes
me an idiot. YMMV.
Further proof that Michael Moore was right when he said that America was
full of stupid people, he must know you well.
Post by can-nuck
We'll see in November, when Kerry wins, what kind of tune you and your
ilk will be crying. Good news is, Kerry doesn't have any brothers as
governonrs, who will help fix the election, so at least it will be a
fair win unlike the coronation of King George II that happened in
2000. But of course, when he wins, there will be nothing but endless
caterwauling by the conservatives here.
One more example of a post that proves you're an idiot.
Post by can-nuck
Oh, the irony of it all....
True. You keep posting and confirming.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Mickey
2004-07-05 16:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
Post by Bob Hatch
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Your post's are making it pretty obvious.
Yeah, I stated that I liked a controversial film. I guess because it
flies in the face of the conservative right's point of view that makes
me an idiot. YMMV.
We'll see in November, when Kerry wins, what kind of tune you and your
ilk will be crying. Good news is, Kerry doesn't have any brothers as
governonrs, who will help fix the election, so at least it will be a
fair win unlike the coronation of King George II that happened in
2000. But of course, when he wins, there will be nothing but endless
caterwauling by the conservatives here.
Oh, the irony of it all....
Seems there's a quote that covers this pretty well. "Better to say
nothing and let other think you a fool ...." or something to that affect.

Mickey
Mark Filice
2004-07-06 16:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mickey
Seems there's a quote that covers this pretty well. "Better to say
nothing and let other think you a fool ...." or something to that affect.
Mickey
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than
to open it and remove all doubt."
---Mark Twain

Another Mark
"It is better to let people think you are a fool than to post to an internet
newsgroup and remove all doubt."
Mark Jones
2004-07-05 19:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
Yeah, I stated that I liked a controversial film. I guess because it
flies in the face of the conservative right's point of view that makes
me an idiot. YMMV.
It also makes you an idiot in the opinion of this Democrat who
sees Moore's movie for the biased opinion piece that it is.
David
2004-07-06 07:38:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:41:54 GMT, "Mark Jones"
Post by Mark Jones
Post by can-nuck
Yeah, I stated that I liked a controversial film. I guess because it
flies in the face of the conservative right's point of view that makes
me an idiot. YMMV.
It also makes you an idiot in the opinion of this Democrat who
sees Moore's movie for the biased opinion piece that it is.
It was a DOCUMENTARY film. It's SUPPOSED to be biased, for heaven's
sake.

It's not meant as an historical record of fact. It is a POV of the
director.

If you have any brain cells left in good working order, it should
stimulate them to actually work! (but not necessarily agree with
Moore). :)

Just meant to make you think, or maybe make you think you still think,
or maybe make you think that you think that you still think. :)

Dave
Go Metric!
AJ
2004-07-06 13:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
It was a DOCUMENTARY film. It's SUPPOSED to be biased, for heaven's
sake.
It's not meant as an historical record of fact. It is a POV of the
director.
OK so what you are saying is that a DOCUMENTARY is not truth but
the POV of the director. Sounds like a good definition of the film.
--
Jim
canoli
2004-07-05 08:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
The more you post the more obvious you make it. Anyone who gives
credence to this film while admitting to knowing it to be political
propaganda is playing solitaire with a fifty-one card deck, and
cheating at that.

Canoli
David
2004-07-06 07:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
The more you post the more obvious you make it. Anyone who gives
credence to this film while admitting to knowing it to be political
propaganda is playing solitaire with a fifty-one card deck, and
cheating at that.
Canoli
It's a documentary film, not a history film. Learn the difference
before you type out your stupidity, please.

Dave
Go Metric!
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 14:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
It's a documentary film, not a history film. Learn the difference
before you type out your stupidity, please.
It's NOT a "documentary" film, it's a propaganda film, pure and simple.
A documentary would tell the WHOLE story. Moore doesn't do that, he
edits portions that refute his propaganda message.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-05 13:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Because of your choice of "amusement"?

Because I saw
Post by can-nuck
a movie I liked and said so, and most likely that conflicts with your
point of view. Hey its the American way to disagree. So be it. I still
think it was a very good although not perfect movie.
We all have our standards, some lower than others.
Post by can-nuck
I have no dissillusions that the movie is a glorified propoganda
piece. Then again so has the "reasons" for us going to war in Iraq and
not getting OBL in the first place an even bigger bucket of propoganda
bullshit. You may not like Michael Moore, but at least he had the guts
to make the movie.
Making a movie takes guts? You don't know what guts is.
Post by can-nuck
The idea that this country has a "volunteer" army is laughable as
well. It's obvious only the poor people in this country enlist, as
there is no other jobs to be had in some places of the country.
Tell it to Pat Tillman and all the news anchors on Fox who have sons in
the military.
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag.

I don't think you even reach the idiot scale. Brain-dead would be
closer to the mark.
LZ
can-nuck
2004-07-05 19:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Because of your choice of "amusement"?
Because I saw
Post by can-nuck
a movie I liked and said so, and most likely that conflicts with your
point of view. Hey its the American way to disagree. So be it. I still
think it was a very good although not perfect movie.
We all have our standards, some lower than others.
That's you opinion. If you think screwing the poor for the sake of the
rich (i.e. the GOP creed) is a high standard you need re-evaluate your
own standards.
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
I have no dissillusions that the movie is a glorified propoganda
piece. Then again so has the "reasons" for us going to war in Iraq and
not getting OBL in the first place an even bigger bucket of propoganda
bullshit. You may not like Michael Moore, but at least he had the guts
to make the movie.
Making a movie takes guts? You don't know what guts is.
Well, it takes guts to make a movie when it will be certain that
blowhards like your self and others will snipe at you for "going
against the grain". What would your definition of guts be?
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
The idea that this country has a "volunteer" army is laughable as
well. It's obvious only the poor people in this country enlist, as
there is no other jobs to be had in some places of the country.
Tell it to Pat Tillman and all the news anchors on Fox who have sons in
the military.
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes! And yes, I
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru. See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost. It's about the POLITICS behind
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude. If you had actually SEEN the movie
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag.
Prove that yourself, lest you are a dishonest scumbag yourself. What
is the rep's name? What district does he/she/it represent? That's what
I thought, he/she/it must represent Strawman county, your place of
residence.
Post by Lone Haranguer
I don't think you even reach the idiot scale. Brain-dead would be
closer to the mark.
LZ
LZ, if your definition of "braindead" is 'disagree with the GOP and
corporate BS', then BIOYA.
Mark Jones
2004-07-05 19:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
That's you opinion. If you think screwing the poor for the sake of the
rich (i.e. the GOP creed) is a high standard you need re-evaluate your
own standards.
That isn't a good idea and neither is the idea of redistribution of
wealth that high taxes and social programs represent.
canoli
2004-07-05 20:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes! And yes, I
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru. See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost. It's about the POLITICS behind
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude. If you had actually SEEN the movie
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
It's not so much a matter of demonizing the critics as it is about
uniting to fight a common enemy.

Like it or not, we are at war: this is not the time to be sniping and
criticizing, it's time to kick ass and hold the debates for a time
when we are safer in our homes and cities.

The only thing Moore demonstrates is that for him, politics and
dissension take precedence over protecting ourselves. It is his right
to speak out against the war, as did Jane Fonda, but think about how
much longer the Vietnam debacle lasted because of the political unrest
spouted while our troops were in the field? Even the VC leaders have
acknowledged they would have lost the war had it not been for the
upheaval in this country created by political agitators.

You seem impressed by the accidental damage Moore raises as yet
another mistake on our part: two and one/half blocks of non-combatent
civilians. Somehow, that doesn't balance the books when it comes to
several thousand truly innocent Americans massacred in the WTC attack.
Post by can-nuck
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
That's known as ambush interviewing, as in asking if you have stopped
beating your wife. Slanted questions designed to embarrass the person
interviewed is yet another example of Moore's dishonesty: this is not
a movie, it's a sly political hatchet job.

Canoli
Carl A.
2004-07-05 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
That's known as ambush interviewing, as in asking if you have stopped
beating your wife. Slanted questions designed to embarrass the person
interviewed is yet another example of Moore's dishonesty: this is not
a movie, it's a sly political hatchet job.
Canoli
Sly? It's about as sly as I'm snarky. Can one do a hatchet job with a
sledgehammer, or am I mixing metaphors again? Perhaps "hatchet job with
guillotine" would be better.
--
Carl A. in FL
Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
canoli
2004-07-05 21:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl A.
Post by canoli
That's known as ambush interviewing, as in asking if you have stopped
beating your wife. Slanted questions designed to embarrass the person
interviewed is yet another example of Moore's dishonesty: this is not
a movie, it's a sly political hatchet job.
Canoli
Sly? It's about as sly as I'm snarky. Can one do a hatchet job with a
sledgehammer, or am I mixing metaphors again? Perhaps "hatchet job with
guillotine" would be better.
You're right, I should have simply said a skanky political hatchet
job, rather than implying credit for being cleverly devious.

Canoli
Madeleine
2004-07-06 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
"it's a sly political hatchet job"

Not "sly" at all. It is a political hatchet job and well deserved one at
that.
--
Peace, Love and Serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=madewar
Post by canoli
Post by can-nuck
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes! And yes, I
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru. See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost. It's about the POLITICS behind
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude. If you had actually SEEN the movie
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
It's not so much a matter of demonizing the critics as it is about
uniting to fight a common enemy.
Like it or not, we are at war: this is not the time to be sniping and
criticizing, it's time to kick ass and hold the debates for a time
when we are safer in our homes and cities.
The only thing Moore demonstrates is that for him, politics and
dissension take precedence over protecting ourselves. It is his right
to speak out against the war, as did Jane Fonda, but think about how
much longer the Vietnam debacle lasted because of the political unrest
spouted while our troops were in the field? Even the VC leaders have
acknowledged they would have lost the war had it not been for the
upheaval in this country created by political agitators.
You seem impressed by the accidental damage Moore raises as yet
another mistake on our part: two and one/half blocks of non-combatent
civilians. Somehow, that doesn't balance the books when it comes to
several thousand truly innocent Americans massacred in the WTC attack.
Post by can-nuck
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
That's known as ambush interviewing, as in asking if you have stopped
beating your wife. Slanted questions designed to embarrass the person
interviewed is yet another example of Moore's dishonesty: this is not
a movie, it's a sly political hatchet job.
Canoli
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 03:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
"it's a sly political hatchet job"
Not "sly" at all. It is a political hatchet job and well deserved one at
that.
Moore and Goebbels are soul mates.
LZ
David
2004-07-06 09:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
Post by can-nuck
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes! And yes, I
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru. See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost. It's about the POLITICS behind
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude. If you had actually SEEN the movie
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
It's not so much a matter of demonizing the critics as it is about
uniting to fight a common enemy.
Like it or not, we are at war: this is not the time to be sniping and
criticizing, it's time to kick ass and hold the debates for a time
when we are safer in our homes and cities.
The only thing Moore demonstrates is that for him, politics and
dissension take precedence over protecting ourselves. It is his right
to speak out against the war, as did Jane Fonda, but think about how
much longer the Vietnam debacle lasted because of the political unrest
spouted while our troops were in the field? Even the VC leaders have
acknowledged they would have lost the war had it not been for the
upheaval in this country created by political agitators.
You seem impressed by the accidental damage Moore raises as yet
another mistake on our part: two and one/half blocks of non-combatent
civilians. Somehow, that doesn't balance the books when it comes to
several thousand truly innocent Americans massacred in the WTC attack.
Post by can-nuck
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
That's known as ambush interviewing, as in asking if you have stopped
beating your wife. Slanted questions designed to embarrass the person
interviewed is yet another example of Moore's dishonesty: this is not
a movie, it's a sly political hatchet job.
Canoli
You are so full of shit, it's unbelievable!

Warfare is not about blindly doing something that is wrong, because
someone tells you you'll be somehow safer for doing it.

Far from being safer, we have merely united more muslim militant
fanatics against us, by attacking iraq. Of course, Bush the genius,
has simultaneously pushed away most of our allies, so we have to do
most of the fighting, alone. (Sorry, a few troops from Latvia or
Poland, don't count for much.)

Vietnam lasted as long as it did, because we couldn't justify a
continuous campaign of civilian slaughter throughout North Vietnam
(and to an extent, also in South Vietnam). And of course, we didn't
have the guts to just pull out of a war we should never have been
involved with in the first place.

Our only reason for being there was "to stop communism", despite the
fact that the people of the South voted to rejoin the communist North!

In other words, we were just meddling, fighting for an ideal that was
OUR OWN, and quite contrary to the democratic vote of the people of
South Vietnam.

If you want to lose a war, you just ask your fighters to be stubborn
as all get out, and keep clinging to the same things they're doing
today. Oh, and of course, you start more wars, or open up major new
fronts to the war you're already fighting!

That stupidity doomed Napoleon & Hitler, (who both foolishly invaded
Russia), and lots of other generals.

As soon as your enemy can predict your next movement(s), you're toast.

As soon as your troop positions are over-extended, or over-committed,
your enemy can attack your supplies AND troops, particularly
effectively, with guerilla tactics.

If we were fighting to remedy the israeli/palestinian problem,
Zarkouwi and others would have a hell of hard time getting recruits.
But No!, we have to invade iraq!!

Spend a THIRD of a TRILLION dollars, kill tens of thousands of
innocent iraqi civilians by the way, and get 900 or more soldiers
killed for Bush's lies.

Wars are NEVER a pretty thing, despite the hollywood versions you
might see, they are ugly affairs, to put it mildly. You don't another
fight, in another country, unless you're damn sure it's needed.

DAMN SURE!

If you think you're safer with Bush, you're dreaming. He's a loose
cannon on deck.

Dave





Go Metric!
can-nuck
2004-07-06 22:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
You seem impressed by the accidental damage Moore raises as yet
another mistake on our part: two and one/half blocks of non-combatent
civilians. Somehow, that doesn't balance the books when it comes to
several thousand truly innocent Americans massacred in the WTC attack.
.
Post by canoli
Canoli
Canoli,

I see you point, but it wasn't Iraqis that killed the thousands in the
WTC, it was Al Qaede operatives. No matter how much the right wants
the two to be connected.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-05 21:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
That's you opinion. If you think screwing the poor for the sake of the
rich (i.e. the GOP creed) is a high standard you need re-evaluate your
own standards.
This is a base canard spread by the DNC and part of their class warfare
policy to gather votes from the stupid and envious. You should be
embarrassed that you were dumb enough to buy into it.

However the fact that you do, proves our assessment of your intelligence.
Post by can-nuck
Well, it takes guts to make a movie when it will be certain that
blowhards like your self and others will snipe at you for "going
against the grain". What would your definition of guts be?
Our words won't hurt him, so what is there to fear?

My definition of guts is if he were willing to go film an Al Qaeda
training camp without a permit. We know he won't risk his fat ass doing
anything dangerous.
Post by can-nuck
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
The idea that this country has a "volunteer" army is laughable as
well. It's obvious only the poor people in this country enlist, as
there is no other jobs to be had in some places of the country.
Tell it to Pat Tillman and all the news anchors on Fox who have sons in
the military.
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes!
Changing the subject now? Some Fox News commentators have sons in the
military and I would not call them poor people; nor was Pat Tillman. So
your claim above is false and you can't support it.


And yes, I
Post by can-nuck
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru.
So volunteer to do your share.

See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
Post by can-nuck
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost.
By continually carping that the war is unnecessary, you destroy the
morale of the troops and their families. THEY see you as the enemy
(which is what you are).

It's about the POLITICS behind
Post by can-nuck
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude.
But in your attempts to defeat Bush, you have no problem harming our
country or its military. You folks actually rejoice when we take
casualties, that is how debased you are.

If you had actually SEEN the movie
Post by can-nuck
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
Then some civilian in a factory may have produced a faulty part. Have
you investigated that aspect? Did Moore? Heck no. He was too intent
on making our troops look bad.
Post by can-nuck
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag.
Prove that yourself, lest you are a dishonest scumbag yourself.
The representative was Kennedy from Minnesota and he was interviewed on
TV, Mr. Moron.

Posted on Fri, Jun. 04, 2004

Rep. Kennedy no fan of Michael Moore film!

Associated Press

Rep. Mark Kennedy, a Republican, is a little annoyed at leftist film
maker Michael Moore after an edited version of an interview between the
two appeared in Moore's upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Post by can-nuck
LZ, if your definition of "braindead" is 'disagree with the GOP and
corporate BS', then BIOYA.
An excellent definition of "brain-dead" is someone who watches a blatant
propaganda film with edited film clips and believes the false view it
presents. You qualify.
LZ
Madeleine
2004-07-06 01:59:59 UTC
Permalink
"He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag."

Not dishonest at all. He says only one Congressman has an "enlisted" son or
daughter in the military. There are also two Congressmen that have sons who
are officers. That is the extent of Congress' personal involvement.

The point being made (which you can't know since you won't see the movie) is
that the overwhelming majority of the volunteer services is poor or working
class people without other options. And, they are sheep being led to
slaughter in a war that should never have happened. It was sold to the
public with lies and more lies.
--
Peace, Love and Serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=madewar
Post by can-nuck
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
You have never met me, so how do you know I am an idiot?
Because of your choice of "amusement"?
Because I saw
Post by can-nuck
a movie I liked and said so, and most likely that conflicts with your
point of view. Hey its the American way to disagree. So be it. I still
think it was a very good although not perfect movie.
We all have our standards, some lower than others.
That's you opinion. If you think screwing the poor for the sake of the
rich (i.e. the GOP creed) is a high standard you need re-evaluate your
own standards.
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
I have no dissillusions that the movie is a glorified propoganda
piece. Then again so has the "reasons" for us going to war in Iraq and
not getting OBL in the first place an even bigger bucket of propoganda
bullshit. You may not like Michael Moore, but at least he had the guts
to make the movie.
Making a movie takes guts? You don't know what guts is.
Well, it takes guts to make a movie when it will be certain that
blowhards like your self and others will snipe at you for "going
against the grain". What would your definition of guts be?
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
The idea that this country has a "volunteer" army is laughable as
well. It's obvious only the poor people in this country enlist, as
there is no other jobs to be had in some places of the country.
Tell it to Pat Tillman and all the news anchors on Fox who have sons in
the military.
HAHAHA! You use Fox news as an example! Talk about lowest common
denominator news! The have Bill O'Reilly for crissakes! And yes, I
can't imagine what Pat Tillman and HUNDREDS of other families are
going thru. See, the republican creed is to immediately demonize
people who criticize the war and make it seem like there is no
comassion for the families of the lost. It's about the POLITICS behind
the war, not the poeple fighting the war. The soldiers and others in
the military deserve our gratitude. If you had actually SEEN the movie
that is one of the points Moore demostrated very well, that and our
"precision guided ordinace" that wiped out 2 1/2 block of innocent
civilians...
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag.
Prove that yourself, lest you are a dishonest scumbag yourself. What
is the rep's name? What district does he/she/it represent? That's what
I thought, he/she/it must represent Strawman county, your place of
residence.
Post by Lone Haranguer
I don't think you even reach the idiot scale. Brain-dead would be
closer to the mark.
LZ
LZ, if your definition of "braindead" is 'disagree with the GOP and
corporate BS', then BIOYA.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 03:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
"He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag."
Not dishonest at all.
According to Representative Mark Kennedy he is dishonest.

He says only one Congressman has an "enlisted" son or
Post by Madeleine
daughter in the military.
How many do you have? Have you ever served?

There are also two Congressmen that have sons who
Post by Madeleine
are officers. That is the extent of Congress' personal involvement.
How many sons does Moore have in the military?
Post by Madeleine
The point being made (which you can't know since you won't see the movie) is
that the overwhelming majority of the volunteer services is poor or working
class people without other options.
The majority always has been, even when we had the draft. Kerry only
joined after his deferment was turned down. Better do some homework.

And, they are sheep being led to
Post by Madeleine
slaughter in a war that should never have happened. It was sold to the
public with lies and more lies.
So was WWII and Vietnam. Don't you know any history?
LZ
Madeleine
2004-07-06 03:08:22 UTC
Permalink
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"

No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a service
connected disability.
--
Peace, Love and Serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=madewar
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Madeleine
"He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag."
Not dishonest at all.
According to Representative Mark Kennedy he is dishonest.
He says only one Congressman has an "enlisted" son or
Post by Madeleine
daughter in the military.
How many do you have? Have you ever served?
There are also two Congressmen that have sons who
Post by Madeleine
are officers. That is the extent of Congress' personal involvement.
How many sons does Moore have in the military?
Post by Madeleine
The point being made (which you can't know since you won't see the movie) is
that the overwhelming majority of the volunteer services is poor or working
class people without other options.
The majority always has been, even when we had the draft. Kerry only
joined after his deferment was turned down. Better do some homework.
And, they are sheep being led to
Post by Madeleine
slaughter in a war that should never have happened. It was sold to the
public with lies and more lies.
So was WWII and Vietnam. Don't you know any history?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 04:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"
No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a service
connected disability.
So you are coasting on his service? Why do you bother criticizing
members of Congress when neither you nor Michael Moore have anyone
serving and neither of you have served?

I served 21 years. Volunteers are volunteers. They don't run off and
leave their comrades-in-arms after a few months like Kerry did, using
phony scratches as their excuse.

I'm sure a suitably edited film could be made about Kerry's life that
would make him appear as the opportunistic and traitorous gigolo that
his record shows him to be.
LZ
Dot
2004-07-06 06:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Madeleine
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"
No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a
service connected disability.
So you are coasting on his service? Why do you bother criticizing
members of Congress when neither you nor Michael Moore have anyone
serving and neither of you have served?
LZ,
That is a disgusting low blow! You should remember "they who also
serve..." That dear wife you've mentioned apparently never had to worry
about you in those 21 years because you must never have been in harm's
way -- unless a weather vane fell on you.

Moreover, how come you, and not Madeleine, have the privilege of
criticizing Congress -- representatives of all the people, not just
members of the military?

Yeah, I'm coasting... WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Libya, Bosnia,
Albania, Iraq and other places my family's served. Military service by two
husbands and three sons adds up to 76 years. Two sons recently returned
from Iraq. Is that enough for you? Maybe you'd feel better if they'd made
the ultimate sacrifice.

The other day someone quoted something by you that I was interested in, so
I unblocked you. Again: plonk!
--
Dot
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 13:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Madeleine
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"
No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a
service connected disability.
So you are coasting on his service? Why do you bother criticizing
members of Congress when neither you nor Michael Moore have anyone
serving and neither of you have served?
LZ,
That is a disgusting low blow! You should remember "they who also
serve..." That dear wife you've mentioned apparently never had to worry
about you in those 21 years because you must never have been in harm's
way -- unless a weather vane fell on you.
Har, har. I would bet a trainload of money that I had more bullets
fired at me on one mission than John Kerry AND Madeleine's husband had
in their ENTIRE careers. Even in weather service I had artillery drop
on me on several occasions. You have no idea what my service entailed.

I could say that in all your married years you never had flour on your
hands and be just as accurate.
Post by Dot
Moreover, how come you, and not Madeleine, have the privilege of
criticizing Congress -- representatives of all the people, not just
members of the military?
Who said she couldn't criticize Congress? I merely point out that she
is criticizing an area where she and Moore are also lacking. Ergo, she
lacks standing.
Post by Dot
Yeah, I'm coasting... WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Libya, Bosnia,
Albania, Iraq and other places my family's served. Military service by two
husbands and three sons adds up to 76 years. Two sons recently returned
from Iraq. Is that enough for you? Maybe you'd feel better if they'd made
the ultimate sacrifice.
Those who served can point fingers if they choose, at least THEY have
some standing. Moore has no such military background so it is nothing
but a cheap shot. I'm surprised that Madeleine admires him for it.
Post by Dot
The other day someone quoted something by you that I was interested in, so
I unblocked you. Again: plonk!
--
Dot
Thanks. It's hard to debate hysterical people since they have no
connection to reality.
LZ
Maniack
2004-07-06 15:59:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:59:36 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Dot
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Madeleine
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"
No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a
service connected disability.
So you are coasting on his service? Why do you bother criticizing
members of Congress when neither you nor Michael Moore have anyone
serving and neither of you have served?
LZ,
That is a disgusting low blow! You should remember "they who also
serve..." That dear wife you've mentioned apparently never had to worry
about you in those 21 years because you must never have been in harm's
way -- unless a weather vane fell on you.
Har, har. I would bet a trainload of money that I had more bullets
fired at me on one mission than John Kerry AND Madeleine's husband had
in their ENTIRE careers. Even in weather service I had artillery drop
on me on several occasions. You have no idea what my service entailed.
I could say that in all your married years you never had flour on your
hands and be just as accurate.
Post by Dot
Moreover, how come you, and not Madeleine, have the privilege of
criticizing Congress -- representatives of all the people, not just
members of the military?
Who said she couldn't criticize Congress? I merely point out that she
is criticizing an area where she and Moore are also lacking. Ergo, she
lacks standing.
Like you and thank you for finally backing that up. How can you
continue to criticize when you have less brain power than the people
you are criticizing?
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Dot
Yeah, I'm coasting... WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Libya, Bosnia,
Albania, Iraq and other places my family's served. Military service by two
husbands and three sons adds up to 76 years. Two sons recently returned
from Iraq. Is that enough for you? Maybe you'd feel better if they'd made
the ultimate sacrifice.
Those who served can point fingers if they choose, at least THEY have
some standing. Moore has no such military background so it is nothing
but a cheap shot. I'm surprised that Madeleine admires him for it.
Post by Dot
The other day someone quoted something by you that I was interested in, so
I unblocked you. Again: plonk!
--
Dot
Thanks. It's hard to debate hysterical people since they have no
connection to reality.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 17:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
Like you and thank you for finally backing that up. How can you
continue to criticize when you have less brain power than the people
you are criticizing?
Prove it. My pet tree frog has more brain power than you do.
LZ
Maniack
2004-07-06 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:04:42 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
Like you and thank you for finally backing that up. How can you
continue to criticize when you have less brain power than the people
you are criticizing?
Prove it. My pet tree frog has more brain power than you do.
LZ
bwahahahahahaha...You just keep proving what an ignorant slob you are.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 18:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
bwahahahahahaha...You just keep proving what an ignorant slob you are.
Then why are you the one who asks all the stupid questions?
LZ
Will Sill
2004-07-06 12:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
I'm sure a suitably edited film could be made about Kerry's life that
would make him appear as the opportunistic and traitorous gigolo that
his record shows him to be.
A truthful documentary would sink his boat.

Will Sill
Maniack
2004-07-06 14:41:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:11:03 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Madeleine
"How many do you have? Have you ever served?"
No I haven't served but my husband served 22 years and died from a service
connected disability.
So you are coasting on his service? Why do you bother criticizing
members of Congress when neither you nor Michael Moore have anyone
serving and neither of you have served?
Well, if you believe that then you certainly can't believe that any
person can or should be President if they haven't seen real action in
some sort of conflict or war. That would mean that Bush would be out.
Post by Lone Haranguer
I served 21 years. Volunteers are volunteers. They don't run off and
leave their comrades-in-arms after a few months like Kerry did, using
phony scratches as their excuse.
I'm sure a suitably edited film could be made about Kerry's life that
would make him appear as the opportunistic and traitorous gigolo that
his record shows him to be.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 16:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
Well, if you believe that then you certainly can't believe that any
person can or should be President if they haven't seen real action in
some sort of conflict or war. That would mean that Bush would be out.
The subject is people making comments about Congressmen not having
anyone serving on active duty while they themselves have never served.

What has that got to do with Bush? Is he the one pointing fingers?

Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
LZ
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
I served 21 years. Volunteers are volunteers. They don't run off and
leave their comrades-in-arms after a few months like Kerry did, using
phony scratches as their excuse.
I'm sure a suitably edited film could be made about Kerry's life that
would make him appear as the opportunistic and traitorous gigolo that
his record shows him to be.
LZ
Maniack
2004-07-06 17:33:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:49:20 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
Well, if you believe that then you certainly can't believe that any
person can or should be President if they haven't seen real action in
some sort of conflict or war. That would mean that Bush would be out.
The subject is people making comments about Congressmen not having
anyone serving on active duty while they themselves have never served.
What has that got to do with Bush? Is he the one pointing fingers?
No you are.
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
Post by Lone Haranguer
LZ
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
I served 21 years. Volunteers are volunteers. They don't run off and
leave their comrades-in-arms after a few months like Kerry did, using
phony scratches as their excuse.
I'm sure a suitably edited film could be made about Kerry's life that
would make him appear as the opportunistic and traitorous gigolo that
his record shows him to be.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 18:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
Maniack
2004-07-06 18:54:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:50:37 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
If I thought it was your business I would have already posted that
info. I don't give out such info. Only idiots such as yourself might
because I know better.
Dave Thompson
2004-07-06 21:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:50:37 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
If I thought it was your business I would have already posted that
info. I don't give out such info. Only idiots such as yourself might
because I know better.
In other words you've never worn the uniform of any country. I have NEVER
met anyone who was ashamed to say they served.

--
Dave Thompson
Maniack
2004-07-07 01:33:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:44:48 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Maniack
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:50:37 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
If I thought it was your business I would have already posted that
info. I don't give out such info. Only idiots such as yourself might
because I know better.
In other words you've never worn the uniform of any country. I have NEVER
met anyone who was ashamed to say they served.
Not ashamed at all. Just nobody's business that is as ignorant as you
idiots are in here. I don't get viruses or have problems with my
computer because I don't give out my email address to anyone but
trusted friends and business associates. I also have never had any
problem with stupid internet stalkers or any such assholes because I
know better than to give out personal information and I have used
proxies for over 10 years now. I have been on the internet for close
to 20 years now, back then there was Usenet-Pine email-BBS's- and
people who really had some intelligence and who knew computers.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 23:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maniack
If I thought it was your business I would have already posted that
info.
So if you can't back up your service, don't claim it.

I don't give out such info. Only idiots such as yourself might
Post by Maniack
because I know better.
You know I could spot that you are a windbag and a fake. You wouldn't
be the first wannabe that I've blown out of the water by asking
questions they can't answer.
LZ
Maniack
2004-07-07 01:34:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:33:49 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
If I thought it was your business I would have already posted that
info.
So if you can't back up your service, don't claim it.
I don't give out such info. Only idiots such as yourself might
Post by Maniack
because I know better.
You know I could spot that you are a windbag and a fake. You wouldn't
be the first wannabe that I've blown out of the water by asking
questions they can't answer.
LZ
You can't blow anything much less anyone out of anywhere. But you
think you can of course. You are so funny and others here know what a
blowhard you have always been and continue to be.
R & A
2004-07-06 19:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
Don't worry about it, LZ. Maniack just served...chicken in the NCO's
mess hall. After that, it was "scrub those shitcans!"

Ram
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 23:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by R & A
Don't worry about it, LZ. Maniack just served...chicken in the NCO's
mess hall. After that, it was "scrub those shitcans!"
Ram
I suspect she served beer at that titty bar just outside the gate.
LZ
Mark Jones
2004-07-07 00:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by R & A
Don't worry about it, LZ. Maniack just served...chicken in the NCO's
mess hall. After that, it was "scrub those shitcans!"
Ram
I suspect she served beer at that titty bar just outside the gate.
Gives a new meaning to saying that you "served".
Maniack
2004-07-07 01:34:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:41:47 -0500, Lone Haranguer
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by R & A
Don't worry about it, LZ. Maniack just served...chicken in the NCO's
mess hall. After that, it was "scrub those shitcans!"
Ram
I suspect she served beer at that titty bar just outside the gate.
LZ
It would have been poisoned if I would have served you or your ilk.
Maniack
2004-07-07 01:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R & A
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Maniack
No you are.
I think you are confused.
Post by Maniack
Post by Lone Haranguer
Moore has never flown F-102s; to my knowledge he has never served.
Neither have a lot of other finger-pointers. How about you?
I served.
How long? What branch? What career field?
LZ
Don't worry about it, LZ. Maniack just served...chicken in the NCO's
mess hall. After that, it was "scrub those shitcans!"
Ram
You wish but then all any of you have been able to do is to bullshit
the rest of the people in this group.
bill horne
2004-07-06 04:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
"He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag."
Not dishonest at all. He says only one Congressman has an "enlisted" son or
daughter in the military. There are also two Congressmen that have sons who
are officers. That is the extent of Congress' personal involvement.
- Before I know if it's dishonest or not, I'll need to know - and so do
you:

- The number of the 535 Congressmen that have service-age children.

- The number of the general population that have service-age children.

- The size of the military.

- Do the Guard and Reserves count?

And whether they're officers or enlisted doesn't matter. Officers go in
harm's way, eat MREs and dust, and sleep in tents, too.

Are you gonna get back to me with that?
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 13:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill horne
Post by Madeleine
"He asked our local rep and left his answer out of the movie. Moore is a
dishonest scum bag."
Not dishonest at all. He says only one Congressman has an "enlisted" son or
daughter in the military. There are also two Congressmen that have sons who
are officers. That is the extent of Congress' personal involvement.
- Before I know if it's dishonest or not, I'll need to know - and so do
- The number of the 535 Congressmen that have service-age children.
- The number of the general population that have service-age children.
- The size of the military.
- Do the Guard and Reserves count?
And whether they're officers or enlisted doesn't matter. Officers go in
harm's way, eat MREs and dust, and sleep in tents, too.
Yahbut on manuevers officers get a canvas screen around the shitter
while enlisted have to bare it to the world. Hundreds of innocent
German motorists were mooned on the Autobahn because of this unfair
practice.
LZ
Post by bill horne
Are you gonna get back to me with that?
Dot
2004-07-06 15:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill horne
- The number of the 535 Congressmen that have service-age children.
- The number of the general population that have service-age children.
- The size of the military.
- Do the Guard and Reserves count?
Not number. Percent of Congressional members (who are not just men) versus
percent of general population with service-age children.

As of Wednesday, 156,236 citizen soldiers: National Guard and Army
Reservists were on active duty.

National Guard and Army Reservists make up approximately 40 percent of
American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

The Reserve system was intended to mobilize quickly and send the soldiers
home quickly. It was not intended to maintain the scope of commitment we
have around the world today to combat terrorism and regimes accused of
supporting terrorism that Bush says will take years and not months.
--
Dot
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 16:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
The Reserve system was intended to mobilize quickly and send the soldiers
home quickly.
Could you find the DOD document that states that as the goal? National
Guard troops served FOR THE DURATION during WWII.

It was not intended to maintain the scope of commitment we
Post by Dot
have around the world today to combat terrorism and regimes accused of
supporting terrorism that Bush says will take years and not months.
--
Dot
The National Guard and Reserves are now an integral part of our standing
military. That was the argument when the active duty forces were cut.

You are a little late if you don't care for the concept.
LZ
Paul T.
2004-07-06 17:58:16 UTC
Permalink
"Lone Haranguer" <***@direcway.com> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...

Snipped
Post by Lone Haranguer
The National Guard and Reserves are now an integral part of our standing
military. That was the argument when the active duty forces were cut.
You are a little late if you don't care for the concept.
LZ
My son (in the Army) says that regular army soldiers have no
sympathy
for the reservists. They were taking the money every month.
He would have been on the hook for another 5 years after his 3
year
enlistment. He knew that going in. He has chosen to reup for another
4 years.
Paul
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 19:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul T.
My son (in the Army) says that regular army soldiers have no
sympathy
for the reservists. They were taking the money every month.
He would have been on the hook for another 5 years after his 3
year
enlistment. He knew that going in. He has chosen to reup for another
4 years.
Paul
I wish him the best of everything. Tell him his service is appreciated
and we don't agree with those who think people join the military because
they can't find a civilian job.

LZ
bill horne
2004-07-06 19:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul T.
Snipped
Post by Lone Haranguer
The National Guard and Reserves are now an integral part of our
standing
Post by Lone Haranguer
military. That was the argument when the active duty forces were
cut.
Post by Lone Haranguer
You are a little late if you don't care for the concept.
LZ
My son (in the Army) says that regular army soldiers have no
sympathy
for the reservists.
Paul
Good. They don't deserve any sympathy. If they didn't try to weasel out
when they were called up, they deserve the same praise as he and his
regulars. But if your son means that he and his regulars look down upon
reservists, then he and his regulars should be ashamed of themselves.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Dot
2004-07-06 19:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Dot
The Reserve system was intended to mobilize quickly and send the
soldiers home quickly.
Could you find the DOD document that states that as the goal? National
Guard troops served FOR THE DURATION during WWII.
Post by Dot
It was not intended to maintain the scope of commitment we
have around the world today to combat terrorism and regimes accused of
supporting terrorism that Bush says will take years and not months.
--
Dot
The National Guard and Reserves are now an integral part of our standing
military. That was the argument when the active duty forces were cut.
You are a little late if you don't care for the concept.
LZ
And you are not up to date:
<<
The current Guard and Reserve system was designed after the Vietnam War, a
conflict in which neither President Lyndon B. Johnson nor President
Richard M. Nixon called up reservists in significant numbers, fearing
greater opposition to their policies. In frustration, Gen. Creighton W.
Abrams, the Army chief, shaped a post-Vietnam mix of active and Reserve
forces to ensure that when America went to war with its new all-volunteer
force, hometown America would have to go, too.

"The system to organize, train and equip the Guard and Reserve was
designed for a different era," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief
spokesman. "We are giving significant attention to two areas: how to fix
the way we organize, train and equip, and finding the proper balance
between roles given to the active component and those given to the Reserve
component."

Already, both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter J.
Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, have taken major steps to find
greater efficiencies and build additional combat brigades from the current
force, move some jobs out of the Reserves and into the active services,
and retrain some Reserve units, like artillery, to perform higher-demand
jobs like military police and intelligence.

Richard I. Stark, who is analyzing reserve affairs at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, a Washington policy research
institute, said that the Army traditionally kept about half of its
capability in the Guard and Reserves, yet for years devoted only 8 percent
of its budget to those units.

"That huge disparity will have to be revisited because we are using them
with increasing frequency," Mr. Stark said.>>

BTW, many of the Reservists I've met had spent time on active duty in the
regular Army before joining the Reserves. And for the poster who
denigrates Reservists, perhaps he'd be delighted if Reservists (40 percent
of the military in Iraq) were not there to conduct, protect, and maintain
the transports that brought his regular Army son's supplies.

BTW #2, LZ, I'ved used no "apparently" satire up to this point in this
post. For years, you have made your military exploits are well known on
the Internet.
--
Dot
Time to stop this time wasting stuff. Maybe someone will start a thread on
any MH's used by political candidates. Will Kerry and Edwards have
separate
ones? How will Bush and Cheney's Air Force Ones, our taxes pay for, land
in cities without big landing fields?
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 23:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
Dot
Time to stop this time wasting stuff. Maybe someone will start a thread on
any MH's used by political candidates. Will Kerry and Edwards have
separate
ones? How will Bush and Cheney's Air Force Ones, our taxes pay for, land
in cities without big landing fields?
You should be worrying about Senator Schumer who was flying on the
taxpayer's dime and got caught at it. The good Senator is an expert on
ethics and sits in judgment on confirming federal judges. His own
ethics are MIA but he claims now it was just an accounting boo-boo.
He got his cue from Clinton.
LZ
Madeleine
2004-07-06 20:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Everyone served "for the duration" during WWII. That's ancient history.
--
Peace, Love and Serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=madewar
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by Dot
The Reserve system was intended to mobilize quickly and send the soldiers
home quickly.
Could you find the DOD document that states that as the goal? National
Guard troops served FOR THE DURATION during WWII.
It was not intended to maintain the scope of commitment we
Post by Dot
have around the world today to combat terrorism and regimes accused of
supporting terrorism that Bush says will take years and not months.
--
Dot
The National Guard and Reserves are now an integral part of our standing
military. That was the argument when the active duty forces were cut.
You are a little late if you don't care for the concept.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-07 00:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
Everyone served "for the duration" during WWII. That's ancient history.
That's the point. I wasn't the one saying that the National Guard or
Reserves were just used for short term service.

Show us the document that says they can't be used for long term call
ups. Also see the USSC case U.S. vs Perpich.
LZ
bill horne
2004-07-06 19:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
Not number. Percent of Congressional members (who are not just men) versus
percent of general population with service-age children.
Before you can get the percents, you gotta get the numbers.
Post by Dot
As of Wednesday, 156,236 citizen soldiers: National Guard and Army
Reservists were on active duty.
That doesn't sound right at all. There are almost that many on the
ground in Iraq. What about those who are in the air and on the ground
and sea all over the world?
Post by Dot
National Guard and Army Reservists make up approximately 40 percent of
American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
--
Dot
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Dot
2004-07-06 20:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill horne
Post by Dot
Not number. Percent of Congressional members (who are not just men)
versus percent of general population with service-age children.
Before you can get the percents, you gotta get the numbers.
You know the exact number in Congress. The general population varies so
that only a generalization of family members in service can be made. It's
actually another of your round robin, "dumbass" questions where asking "
what is the percent of..." would have made more sense.
Post by bill horne
Post by Dot
As of Wednesday, 156,236 citizen soldiers: National Guard and Army
Reservists were on active duty.
That doesn't sound right at all. There are almost that many on the
ground in Iraq. What about those who are in the air and on the ground
and sea all over the world?
Post by Dot
National Guard and Army Reservists make up approximately 40 percent of
American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
Here it is, bill, straight from the DoD:
<<
No. 622-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of June 30, 2004
This week the Army announced a decrease in the number of
reservists on active duty in support of the partial mobilization. The
Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps each announced an increase. The net
collective result is 431 more reservists on active duty than last week.

At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while
demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either
increase or decrease. Total number currently on active duty in support of
the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is
130,912; Naval Reserve 2,694; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve,
11,701; Marine Corps Reserve, 9,387; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 1,542.
This brings the total National Guard and Reserve on active duty to 156,236
including both units and individual augmentees. >>

--
Dot
bill horne
2004-07-06 22:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
Post by bill horne
Post by Dot
Not number. Percent of Congressional members (who are not just men)
versus percent of general population with service-age children.
Before you can get the percents, you gotta get the numbers.
You know the exact number in Congress. The general population varies so
that only a generalization of family members in service can be made. It's
actually another of your round robin, "dumbass" questions where asking "
what is the percent of..." would have made more sense.
Actually, my questions were pretty straightforward.
Post by Dot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of June 30, 2004
This week the Army announced a decrease in the number of
reservists on active duty in support of the partial mobilization. The
Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps each announced an increase. The net
collective result is 431 more reservists on active duty than last week.
At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while
demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either
increase or decrease. Total number currently on active duty in support of
the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is
130,912; Naval Reserve 2,694; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve,
11,701; Marine Corps Reserve, 9,387; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 1,542.
This brings the total National Guard and Reserve on active duty to 156,236
including both units and individual augmentees. >>
--
Dot
That's only the reserve and guard that are on active duty.

The questions were simple and clear:

- The number of the 535 Congressmen that have service-age children.

- The number of the general population that have service-age children.

- The size of the military.

- Do the Guard and Reserves count?

I can see that they might be difficult to answer - and I'm finding it to
be so - but they're certainly not difficult to understand.

And I don't know if it's correct, but in 2003, the Minneapolis-St Paul
Star Tribune, said:
-----------------------------------------------------
Of the 535 members of Congress, at least seven [not 3] have a great
personal interest:
They have children in the military who already are participating in the
war or could be called to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------

The point is that it's possible that the percentage of Congressmen with
service-age children who are in the military is similar to the
percentage of the general population with service-age children who are
in the military. If the percentages are similar, then Moore is being
dishonest. If they're not, he's not.

As of May, 2004, there were 1,428,000 active duty military.
There are about 191,000,000 who are 18-64 years old.
The general population is contributing about 0.7 to the AD military.
If Congress is contributing 3, that's about 0.6%
If Congress is contributing 7, that's about 1%.

If you think 64 is too old - even though there is a not insignificant
number of people 45-64 who are the miltary - then we'll try 44.
There are about 112,000,000 who are 18-44.
In which case the genpop is contributing about 1%.
Congress stays the same, because I don't know how old their children
are.

Now if I have all those numbers reasonably accurate (feel free to do
your own research and check my math), is this really the BIG, UNFAIR
deal that Moore makes it out to be?

But one could say, "If you say that only the 18-44 group counts, and
Congress is only contributing 3, then the Congress is only contributing
half as much."

To that I'm compelled to ask, "So if the Congress contributes just 3
more, it will change the face of Congress, make it all FAIR, and
significantly reduce their desire to go to war?" I don't think so.

But as I said, feel free to do some research and report back, because
I'm far from confident that I've considered everything that should be
considered. I've not factored in, for example, the Guard and Reserve who
have not yet been called up - who, as far as I'm concerned, are serving
their country.

Meanwhile, it looks to me like just another disingenuous attempt by
Moore to stir up non-thinkers by drawing major conclusions from
statistically insignificant facts.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
canoli
2004-07-06 07:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madeleine
The point being made (which you can't know since you won't see the movie) is
that the overwhelming majority of the volunteer services is poor or working
class people without other options. And, they are sheep being led to
slaughter in a war that should never have happened. It was sold to the
public with lies and more lies.
I think you tar all the services with the same sorry brush, that they
are so ignorant, unskilled, or unable to be educated that they had no
other choice but to enlist. If that were so, we would have a military
force made up of burger flippers and lawn boys, instead of the skilled
technicians who now operate the sophisticated equipment a modern army
employs.

My youngest boy turned down a college scholarship and enlisted in the
Marines because he felt a sense of duty and patriotism. I've met many
of his fellow Marines, and they all, without exception, are proud to
be serving.

Beyond that, the implied sneer at working class people enlisting
because they had no other operations is bogus, as is the bleeding
heart liberal comment about our troops as sheep being led to
slaughter.

Canoli
Dot
2004-07-06 19:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
I think you tar all the services with the same sorry brush, that they
are so ignorant, unskilled, or unable to be educated that they had no
other choice but to enlist. If that were so, we would have a military
force made up of burger flippers and lawn boys, instead of the skilled
technicians who now operate the sophisticated equipment a modern army
employs.
My youngest boy turned down a college scholarship and enlisted in the
Marines because he felt a sense of duty and patriotism. I've met many
of his fellow Marines, and they all, without exception, are proud to
be serving.
I do not fully agree with M's attitude to which you replied. However, the
majority of the military is made up of the poorer segments of society.
How many CEO's, high-ranking government workers (e.g., Congress),
millionaires (except Haliburton/KBR), etc. have family serving in Iraq,
Afghanistan, South Korea? In highly paid sports: Pat Tillman was a rarity.

Not disregarding the inflation factor, college costs today are far more
than most families can afford. Scholarships are not obtainable by all. The
price per credit hour of my graduate studies 20 years ago won't pay for a
credit hour at a community college today. The military provides
educational benefits such as vocational training, college, and paying off
previous college loans. Ergo: skilled people.

My oldest son is a prime example of the educational benefits of the
military. He has an MBA in logistics, is a lieutenant colonel, and is
commander of a huge battalion -- and is an Army Ranger. He will make full
bird colonel, and, possibly, could make general before he retires.

Be justifiably proud of your son, who is not part of the majority
according to you, but do not impugn other soldiers by inferring they are
not proud to serve.
--
Dot
bill horne
2004-07-06 22:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dot
I do not fully agree with M's attitude to which you replied. However, the
majority of the military is made up of the poorer segments of society.
How many CEO's, high-ranking government workers (e.g., Congress),
millionaires (except Haliburton/KBR), etc. have family serving in Iraq,
Afghanistan, South Korea? In highly paid sports: Pat Tillman was a rarity.
You sound a little like Charlie Rangel. Many of those "poor" people of
which you and he speak would be on welfare, or in prison learning a
trade - instead of in the military learning something or getting an
education.

If we put a bunch more of the better-educated, less-poorer segments of
society in there, we'd have to boot the less-educated, more-poorer
segments of society, and you and Charlie would then bitch about that.

Just face it. as long as Democrats are not in power, they CANNOT be
satisfied.

And then you start making sense, so I'll back off on including you (but
Post by Dot
Not disregarding the inflation factor, college costs today are far more
than most families can afford. Scholarships are not obtainable by all. The
price per credit hour of my graduate studies 20 years ago won't pay for a
credit hour at a community college today. The military provides
educational benefits such as vocational training, college, and paying off
previous college loans. Ergo: skilled people.
My oldest son is a prime example of the educational benefits of the
military. He has an MBA in logistics, is a lieutenant colonel, and is
commander of a huge battalion -- and is an Army Ranger. He will make full
bird colonel, and, possibly, could make general before he retires.
Be justifiably proud of your son, who is not part of the majority
according to you, but do not impugn other soldiers by inferring they are
not proud to serve.
--
Dot
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Carlyle Halliburton
2004-07-05 16:55:07 UTC
Permalink
The circle jerk of right wingers continues as they demonstrate their
ignorance about a film they have never seen.

A clear example of their "thought process":
Wear blinders and ear plugs and then open mouth to shout down any opposing
views.
Bob Hatch
2004-07-05 16:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
The circle jerk of right wingers continues as they demonstrate their
ignorance about a film they have never seen.
Wear blinders and ear plugs and then open mouth to shout down any
opposing views.
Post 3 "facts" you learned from the movie.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Carl A.
2004-07-05 17:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hatch
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
The circle jerk of right wingers continues as they demonstrate their
ignorance about a film they have never seen.
Wear blinders and ear plugs and then open mouth to shout down any
opposing views.
Post 3 "facts" you learned from the movie.
Bob,

you're being unfairly demanding. Give Carlyle a chance. Ask for just one.
--
Carl A. in FL
Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Carlyle Halliburton
2004-07-05 23:19:15 UTC
Permalink
1. Bush was on vacation more than 40% of the time between election and 9/11

2. Ashcroft refused to be briefed about a possible Al Qaeda attack before
9/11

3. Bush, Cheney and Rice have all insinuated that Iraq was resonsible for
9/11
Post by Bob Hatch
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
The circle jerk of right wingers continues as they demonstrate their
ignorance about a film they have never seen.
Wear blinders and ear plugs and then open mouth to shout down any
opposing views.
Post 3 "facts" you learned from the movie.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Bob Hatch
2004-07-05 23:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
1. Bush was on vacation more than 40% of the time between election and 9/11
The President of the United States is never really on vacation. He locates
in different areas including Camp David but still has all vital staff with
him as well as communications capability. The Nuclear Football never leaves
his side unless he is disabled. Camp David as well as his house in Texas are
nothing more than his office in a different location. This "fact" is a
stretch of the very worst kind and you are stupid enough to believe it.
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
2. Ashcroft refused to be briefed about a possible Al Qaeda attack
before 9/11
Briefed by who. He was involved in the drafting of the new policy that was
finalized a few days before 9/11.
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
3. Bush, Cheney and Rice have all insinuated that Iraq was resonsible
for 9/11
This is not a fact, it is a bald faced lie.

What specifically do you mean "insinuated", is that like when the say that
Iraq supported terrorist organizations you think that they mean Al Qaeda,
which BTW the did have contacts with.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/118345p-106678c.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97527%2C00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

I guess when you repeatedly state that Iraq had no hand in the 9/11 attacks
that is an insinuation that they did.

Try again three *facts*, not opinions by the producer.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
canoli
2004-07-06 02:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hatch
Try again three *facts*, not opinions by the producer.
Good try, Bob, but those who accept and believe what they see in the
movies as fact will never be able to judge for themselves what is
truth and what is propaganda.

Canoli
Bob Hatch
2004-07-06 03:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
Post by Bob Hatch
Try again three *facts*, not opinions by the producer.
Good try, Bob, but those who accept and believe what they see in the
movies as fact will never be able to judge for themselves what is
truth and what is propaganda.
Well, I keep poking with the stick to see if I can't get them to do a little
research before speaking out. I don't think that will ever happen

It's sad and pathetic.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
bill horne
2004-07-06 04:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by canoli
Post by Bob Hatch
Try again three *facts*, not opinions by the producer.
Good try, Bob, but those who accept and believe what they see in the
movies as fact will never be able to judge for themselves what is
truth and what is propaganda.
Canoli
Well, I watch Star Trek, and I believe we have transporter technology,
but it's being suppressed by the BushBigoil conspiracy.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
canoli
2004-07-06 06:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill horne
Post by canoli
Good try, Bob, but those who accept and believe what they see in the
movies as fact will never be able to judge for themselves what is
truth and what is propaganda.
Canoli
Well, I watch Star Trek, and I believe we have transporter technology,
but it's being suppressed by the BushBigoil conspiracy.
I believe you believe what I believe not to be true.

Canoli
David
2004-07-06 09:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hatch
Post by Carlyle Halliburton
The circle jerk of right wingers continues as they demonstrate their
ignorance about a film they have never seen.
Wear blinders and ear plugs and then open mouth to shout down any
opposing views.
Post 3 "facts" you learned from the movie.
1) Bush is reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids at the school he's
visiting, when he's told the second plane has struck the WTC.

He looks lost, and decides TO KEEP ON READING My Pet Goat, for another
seven more minutes!

Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".

Absolutely unbelievable!

Dave

Go Metric!
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 14:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
1) Bush is reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids at the school he's
visiting, when he's told the second plane has struck the WTC.
You LEARNED this from Moore's movie? It was on TV dozens of times after
9-11!
Post by David
He looks lost, and decides TO KEEP ON READING My Pet Goat, for another
seven more minutes!
Why panic the children? What useful act could he have performed?
Post by David
Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".
Hundreds of thousands? Where do you get your information?

You're the biggest liar on Usenet.
Post by David
Absolutely unbelievable!
You certainly are!
LZ
Mark Jones
2004-07-06 14:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by David
Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".
Hundreds of thousands? Where do you get your information?
Hundreds "or" thousands.
Lone Haranguer
2004-07-06 16:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jones
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by David
Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".
Hundreds of thousands? Where do you get your information?
Hundreds "or" thousands.
My boo-boo. I let it ride to see if David really has me plonked.
LZ
Madeleine
2004-07-06 21:08:04 UTC
Permalink
"Hundreds of thousands"

You can't read? He said hundreds OR thousands...
--
Peace, Love and Serenity,
Madeleine
http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=madewar
Post by Lone Haranguer
Post by David
1) Bush is reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids at the school he's
visiting, when he's told the second plane has struck the WTC.
You LEARNED this from Moore's movie? It was on TV dozens of times after
9-11!
Post by David
He looks lost, and decides TO KEEP ON READING My Pet Goat, for another
seven more minutes!
Why panic the children? What useful act could he have performed?
Post by David
Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".
Hundreds of thousands? Where do you get your information?
You're the biggest liar on Usenet.
Post by David
Absolutely unbelievable!
You certainly are!
LZ
Bob Hatch
2004-07-06 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
1) Bush is reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids at the school he's
visiting, when he's told the second plane has struck the WTC.
He looks lost, and decides TO KEEP ON READING My Pet Goat, for another
seven more minutes!
Hundreds or thousands dead in an act of war, and our commander in
chief can't think of anything to do except read "My Pet Goat".
Absolutely unbelievable!
Great. You learned one thing that had been shown on the news hundreds of
times. You're a friggin genius.

Now, I'm trying to figure out what upsets you the most. That he wasn't
reading War and Peace to the kids, because you keep harping on the title of
the book, or that he kept his composure under extraordinary circumstances.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Miles
2004-07-07 00:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
1) Bush is reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids at the school he's
visiting, when he's told the second plane has struck the WTC.
He looks lost, and decides TO KEEP ON READING My Pet Goat, for another
seven more minutes!
The 9/11 Commision stated that Bush did the right thing by not panicking
in front of children and allowing his staff to gather more info and make
preparations for the day. Was the 9/11 commision wrong in their findings?
David
2004-07-06 07:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by can-nuck
I think the most amusing part of the movie was when M. Moore was
searching out Senators and Representatives to see if they would commit
to sending their own children off to the war currently going on. Not
one said they would, and currently only one legislator in office has
one of their offspring in the war.
Yep! That was a hoot!

Dave
Go Metric!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...