View Full Version : Fahrenheit 9/11
w5klb
05-31-2006, 11:15 PM
...for $85 Million dollars. Imagine that.
Quote[/b] ]"I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is," said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -- "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."
Ponit your mouse here to read about it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html)
KW4MW
06-01-2006, 12:29 AM
MM, despite his so called anti-war, anti-Bush message, he is nothing more than a fat tired old whore who is getting rich off of other peoples miseries.
He gives sincere protestors a bad name.
KF0RT
06-01-2006, 12:37 AM
Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 31 2006,18:29)]MM, despite his so called anti-war, anti-Bush message, he is nothing more than a fat tired old whore who is getting rich off of other peoples miseries.
He gives sincere protestors a bad name.
"Opportunist" is the word I use. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
(Fat tired old whore aside...)
73, Rob
w5klb
06-01-2006, 01:25 AM
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ May 31 2006,17:37)]Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 31 2006,18:29)]MM, despite his so called anti-war, anti-Bush message, he is nothing more than a fat tired old whore who is getting rich off of other peoples miseries. # #
He gives sincere protestors a bad name.
"Opportunist" is the word I use. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Amen to that brutha.
I hope this vet wins his case. If that happens, Mike will have to cut down on his daily rations to just half a dozen "Whoppers ®" and only 1 liter of his favorite diet beverage.
HAW! !©
KE5FRF
06-01-2006, 01:54 AM
I'll not comment on his obesity, because I empathize with him, though I imagine he could go without a few Big Macs and Milk shakes for a while.
Otherwise, he is a sleezeball and Anti-American. I hope this guy breaks him.
The most disgusting image I have of Micheal Moore was the Democratic National Convention, and him prominently seated in a "guest of honor" type position, it seems like next to Jimmy Carter. Another guy I could have done without.
W2ILP
06-01-2006, 02:15 AM
Whenever somebody sues somebody it makes me wonder. Is he suing for logical indignation of being wronged?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif ...for his own egotistical desire to get publicised?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif....or just to make money for himself?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I tend to suspect that the last query is most often the reason. When someone changes his opinion by 180 degrees we can see that either he no longer agrees with himself or he wants to get money from those he agreed with at first... but who didn't pay him well for his original opinion. Again the latter case is more likely.
Mike Moore is a patriot who was among the very first to recognize George W. Bush as either an idiot or a very slick lier who pretends to be an idiot. I dunno which will be proved to historians who write GWB biographies in the future, but the Moore observations of Dubbue will certainly prevail as cumulative evidence of whatever is eventually proved.
w2ilp (Impeach Lying President)
KW4MW
06-01-2006, 02:16 AM
Quote[/b] ]The most disgusting image I have of Micheal Moore was the Democratic National Convention, and him prominently seated in a "guest of honor" type position, it seems like next to Jimmy Carter. Another guy I could have done without.Strange - I actually felt some sympathy for Jimmie.
KW4MW
06-01-2006, 02:18 AM
Quote[/b] ]Mike Moore is a patriot I think I'm gonna puke.
W8EFA
06-01-2006, 02:22 AM
Faux News? Just a frivolous lawsuit. Moore has been sued by Fox, Michael Savage, Terry Nichols brother, and others. Guess what - he has never lost.
Does this look like the same story, different movie?
Never even went to trial and was dropped.
James Nichols sues Michael Moore over 'Bowling' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/29/nichols.ap/)
Moore was right -- the war was sold using fictitious reasons.
Quote[/b] ]Otherwise, he is a sleezeball and Anti-American. I
QRZ right wingers claim that Moore is un-American, which for them seems to be a synonym for un-Republican
KC2ESD
06-01-2006, 04:03 AM
MM Being Sued is good news, and this is coming from someone in 2 land, me.
Rick KC2ESD I should live in 4 or 5 land.
w5klb
06-01-2006, 04:25 AM
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ May 31 2006,19:22)]Moore was right -- the war was sold using fictitious reasons.
Moore(on) is wrong and continues to be wrong.
He was wrong on Columbine and wrong here too. I wouldn't say he "hates" America, he is just mad at the fact that his liberal socialist buddies lost the last TWO elections. So, he resorts to twisting the truth to make it look like that Bush lied. Real history proves otherwise.
The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence. George Tennant, former CIA director and a Klinton holdover (remember him?), RESIGNED for giving such information. Mikey and his group of liberal lackies need to get over it and quit re-writing history.
You can be a Democrat be an American. Examples are Zell Miller who is a Democrat. But liberals are a far different matter. They have taken over the Democratic Party to the point where most Americans aren't buying the failed liberal policies that put them in the minority. This will continue until people like you tell Mikey, George Sorros , Ms "Potty Mouth" Sheehan and others like them #to go "take a loooong walk off a very short pier".
Mikey reminds me of a smooth talking salesman trying to peddle "a bill of goods" to some unsuspecting victum(s). IMHO, he reaping what he has sowed.
And FYI, I don't agree with EVERTHING this Admistration has done, so I don't think you can classify me as "right winger". I am more of a centrist who is a MODERATE Republican. I cross party lines sometimes depending on the candidtate. I just haven't found a Democrat worth voting for, so far. Most of them are waaay to liberal for me and most Americans. That's the reason the Dems keep losing major elections. Hopefully the Dems will get a clue about this. Howard Dean sure isn't helping their "cause".
BTW, I noticed that you linked that story from CNN which isn't quite known for its "journalistic quality" or its ratings like Fox...er "Faux". They always take "pot-shots" at Fox, but for some reason, it contiues to highly rated over CNN. Imagine that!
w8cbc
06-01-2006, 05:48 AM
w5klb: Quote[/b] ]The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence.
My understanding of the situation is that the intelligence was there and it was willfully ignored. B/C/R were hot and horny to go to war and nothing was going to stop them. So the CIA takes the fall for bad decisions at the top. It is a disgustingly familiar pattern.
I haven't seen any of the films in question by the way. I just happen to remember things that most seem to conveniently forget.
KA9VQF
06-01-2006, 06:41 AM
It is my opinion that President Bush and his family have had a hot mad on for Iraq for a long time. I think this is a personal spat that they have managed to twice get our country involved in.
If you go to the neocon web site you will see that the new regime headed by GWB had already planned to start a war in that region they just needed a way to get the people behind it.
They needed a pearl harbor.
They got it.
Again, it is my opinion that they new about the strike against the World Trade Center buildings and let it happen.
Go ahead and do some research on Pearl Harbor. You should pretty quickly find that the intelligence agencies of the time had all the details about the Japanese ‘sneak attack’, including the Japanese codes, in more than enough time to prevent it from being so devastating or even to meet the Japanese fleet in the pacific, yet they allowed it to happen anyway in an effort to popularize the war in Europe.
They usually say that they didn’t want the Japanese to know that we had their codes and an enigma machine.
Please note that these are my personal thoughts and opinions about what happened in 2001. I have been to several ‘conspiracy’ sites and have found that some of what I think is mirrored at some of them but by and large most of those sites are way to radical for my tastes. I do not subscribe or support any of them.
w5klb
06-01-2006, 09:17 AM
Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ May 31 2006,22:48)]w5klb: Quote[/b] ]The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence.
My understanding of the situation is that the intelligence was there and it was willfully ignored. #B/C/R were hot and horny to go to war and nothing was going to stop them. #So the CIA takes the fall for bad decisions at the top. #It is a disgustingly familiar pattern.
You have no proof of this because none exsists. It's another re-write of history in your version. Good luck with that. Maybe you can convence the other Prols of this but most people#who have a firm grasp of reality and real facts know better.
CIA took the fall because that's where the failure was located. George Tennant knew it. And, if you will remember, George Bush defended Tennent after we invaded, so you can't say that the President forced Tennet to submit resignation papers, he did it on his own.
But feel free to re-write your own version of this. You and the far left always do in spite of what history reflects.
w5klb
06-01-2006, 09:47 AM
Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ May 31 2006,23:41)]
If you go to the neocon web site you will see that the new regime headed by GWB had already planned to start a war in that region they just needed a way to get the people behind it.
They needed a pearl harbor.
They got it. #
No, what we needed was for "Bootlicker" to live up to all #UN resolutions. What we needed was for "Bootlicker" to allow UN weapons inspecters do their job. We gave him many chances to "come clean" and what did we get?
Cheat and retreat.
So what did he get?
1. His two sons killed.
2. His army dissimated
3. His palaces sacked
4. His person thrown in jail and standing trail for "Crimes Against Humanity" and faces possible hanging.
What did his people get?
1. A new DEMOCRATIC goverment where they can vote and have a say on how that goverment is run
2. Liberation and a little FREEDOM The terrorist hate it. Insurgency and violence are rampant. But I'm sure they would rather face that, than to be under the heel of a ruthless tyrant whose son RAPED their daughters, jailed their children, and gassed fellow citizens.
So you just keep making your tin foil cap and watching for those "black helicopters".
No, you don't have to thank me of reminding you of the truth. Consider it a Public Service. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory for those who run out of real facts.
We will now return you are regularly scheduled thread already in progess.
The subject is Fatso getting sued for $85 Mill.
KF0RT
06-01-2006, 12:08 PM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ May 31 2006,19:25)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ May 31 2006,17:37)]Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 31 2006,18:29)]MM, despite his so called anti-war, anti-Bush message, he is nothing more than a fat tired old whore who is getting rich off of other peoples miseries.
He gives sincere protestors a bad name.
"Opportunist" is the word I use. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Amen to that brutha.
I hope this vet wins his case. If that happens, Mike will have to cut down on his daily rations to just half a dozen "Whoppers ®" and only 1 liter of his favorite diet beverage.
HAW! !©
Of course, I DO believe that MM and Limbaugh make for a great set of bookends.
Put 'em both on a one-way moon shot; the world would be a better place.
They could both do with a few less "Whoppers."
73, Rob
ac4ut
06-01-2006, 12:18 PM
Moore is an opportunist vulture. Bush being wrong is irrevelant to the guilt of Moore.
This is an individual suing him,an individual that will garner sympathy from a jury, and I know something of such trials.
He is just another greedy money seeker that chooses to make money polarizing this country.
If he donates all the money he made from his films to cancer research I will apologize, but I won't hold my breath
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ May 31 2006,13:15)]Whenever somebody sues somebody it makes me wonder. Is he suing for logical indignation of being wronged?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif ...for his own egotistical desire to get publicised?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif....or just to make money for himself?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I tend to suspect that the last query is most often the reason. When someone changes his opinion by 180 degrees we can see that either he no longer agrees with himself or he wants to get money from those he agreed with at first... but who didn't pay him well for his original opinion. Again the latter case is more likely.
Mike Moore is a patriot who was among the very first to recognize George W. Bush as either an idiot or a very slick lier who pretends to be an idiot. I dunno which will be proved to historians who write GWB biographies in the future, but the Moore observations of Dubbue will certainly prevail as cumulative evidence of whatever is eventually proved.
w2ilp (Impeach Lying President)
It ain't for the money brutha. I have $85 M hidden in a sock in my closet. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif It is totally for the principle of the interview being taken out of context!
The story left off the part where it tells whether the guy signed a release for the interview to be used. I missed that part.
Rush to judgement. We had Marines being accused of murder with overwhelming evidence that this is the fact as they have admitted to it, and QRZ'ers here say "Don't try them here! Let's not rush to judgement. We don't know the whole story."
But who cares about a fat ugly old guy anyway? He has the money to throw.
It's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only a movie.
Speaking of not "Living up to UN resolutions", let's not forget Israel, #1 on the list. When do we invade?
Some people need to be studying for their Extra class exam. You know what I am talking about.
To me, the big Moore travesty is that he won the academy award for best documentary picture. Nobody in their right mind, including real documentarians themselves, considers Farenheit 9/11 a documentary film of any sort.
KD6NIG
06-01-2006, 04:28 PM
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ May 31 2006,17:37)]Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 31 2006,18:29)]MM, despite his so called anti-war, anti-Bush message, he is nothing more than a fat tired old whore who is getting rich off of other peoples miseries. # #
He gives sincere protestors a bad name.
"Opportunist" is the word I use. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
(Fat tired old whore aside...)
73, Rob
Car Owner: "Just what do you think is causing all that knocking?"
Mechanic: (rubbing his palms together): "Oppurtunity."
(Ok, I didn't come up with it, saw it in Mad Magazine years ago)
KA9VQF
06-01-2006, 04:59 PM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 01 2006,02:47)]Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ May 31 2006,23:41)]
{edited quote} <like this I really hate being taken out of context by editing this you removed the part where I say it is my opinion>
If you go to the neocon web site you will see that the new regime headed by GWB had already planned to start a war in that region they just needed a way to get the people behind it.
They needed a pearl harbor.
They got it. #
No, what we needed was for "Bootlicker" to live up to all #UN resolutions. What we needed was for "Bootlicker" to allow UN weapons inspecters do their job. We gave him many chances to "come clean" and what did we get?
Cheat and retreat.
So what did he get?
1. His two sons killed.
2. His army dissimated
3. His palaces sacked
4. His person thrown in jail and standing trail for "Crimes Against Humanity" and faces possible hanging.
What did his people get?
1. A new DEMOCRATIC goverment where they can vote and have a say on how that goverment is run
2. Liberation and a little FREEDOM The terrorist hate it. Insurgency and violence are rampant. But I'm sure they would rather face that, than to be under the heel of a ruthless tyrant whose son RAPED their daughters, jailed their children, and gassed fellow citizens.
So you just keep making your tin foil cap and watching for those "black helicopters".
No, you don't have to thank me of reminding you of the truth. Consider it a Public Service. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory for those who run out of real facts.
We will now return you are regularly scheduled thread already in progess.
The subject is Fatso getting sued for $85 Mill.
If you are going to edit my post please put {edited quote} inside the edited quote.
KA8NCR
06-01-2006, 05:14 PM
Free speech is a real bitch, ain't it fellas? If you want it, you have to tolerate people who say things you dislike and to which you disagree.
But alas, the system is working. Moore shot off his mouth and he's likely to have to pay -- plenty.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif I SEEN THIS CREEP AT OUR LOCAL BANK,HE DEPOSITED
$ 10,000.00 SO HE COULD GET A FREE RIFLE:angry: HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND IT WAS AND THEN TOOK A LOT OF VIDEO OF THE BANK AND THEIR POLICIES,HE WAS HAVING A FIT BECAUSE HE HAD TO FILL OUT THE ATFs FIREARMS PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN HAD TO WAIT 20 MINS TO GET APPROVAL! WHAT A JERK AND XXXXXXX! HE MADE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF THIS DOCUMENTRY
I HOPE THEY ALL WIN THEIR SUITS,PUT THIS CREEP IN HIS PLACE:p ALSO A YELLOWBELLY HIPOCRITE WHOREMONGER:p
K8PG-Paul- CW LIVES:)
w5klb
06-01-2006, 07:09 PM
Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ June 01 2006,09:59)]If you are going to edit my post please put {edited quote} inside the edited quote.
Trying to change the subject will not help your situation.
The basic "jest" of your post was based on unfounded conspearacy theories that are unproven trying to avoid, it seemed to me, an unconforable situation that you may not like. And all you could do was whine about me taking your post out of context. You couldn't come up with any real hard evidence otherwise. People do it me and others all the time. That part of the deal when you post here.
If I am wrong, post some hard evidence to prove me wrong. Eh, you won't do that. Guys like me who post some facts about Mikey Moore(on) and other liberal lackies will always be "neocons" to you and I shall continue to sleep very well with knowing that fact. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (k8pg @ June 01 2006,05:09)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif I SEEN THIS CREEP AT OUR LOCAL BANK,HE DEPOSITED
$ 10,000.00 SO HE COULD GET A FREE RIFLE:angry: HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND IT WAS AND THEN TOOK A LOT OF VIDEO OF THE BANK AND THEIR POLICIES,HE WAS HAVING A FIT BECAUSE HE HAD TO FILL OUT THE ATFs FIREARMS PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN HAD TO WAIT 20 MINS TO GET APPROVAL! WHAT A JERK AND XXXXXXX! HE MADE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF THIS DOCUMENTRY
I HOPE THEY ALL WIN THEIR SUITS,PUT THIS CREEP IN HIS PLACE:p ALSO A YELLOWBELLY HIPOCRITE WHOREMONGER:p
K8PG-Paul- CW LIVES:)
Yeah, Yeeaghhh. That #*@*# was bashing my buddy Clinton in that movie. He was talking about how easy the Clinton was in allowing the flow of firearms to be proliferated throughout the country. Thank heavens we have a more strict policy now on guns after Clinton got out of there!
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 01 2006,15:15)]
Yeah, Yeeaghhh. That #*@*# was bashing my buddy Clinton in that movie. He was talking about how easy the Clinton was in allowing the flow of firearms to be proliferated throughout the country. Thank heavens we have a more strict policy now on guns after Clinton got out of there!
From the CDC site:
<span style='color:red'>Firearm Homicides/Rate per 100,000</span>
Clinton's Administration
1999 10,828 3.88/100,000
2000 10,801 3.84/100,000
Bush's Administration
2001 11,348 3.98/100,000
2002 11,829 4.11/100,000
2003 11,920 4.10/100,000
Rates prior to 1999 not comparable according to CDC.
KE5FRF
06-02-2006, 12:28 AM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:03)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 01 2006,15:15)]
Yeah, Yeeaghhh. That #*@*# was bashing my buddy Clinton in that movie. He was talking about how easy the Clinton was in allowing the flow of firearms to be proliferated throughout the country. Thank heavens we have a more strict policy now on guns after Clinton got out of there!
From the CDC site:
<span style='color:red'>Firearm Homicides/Rate per 100,000</span>
Clinton's Administration
1999 10,828 3.88/100,000
2000 10,801 3.84/100,000
Bush's Administration
2001 11,348 3.98/100,000
2002 11,829 4.11/100,000
2003 11,920 4.10/100,000
Rates prior to 1999 not comparable according to CDC.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lock em up, but don't blame the president.
I wonder how much percentage of that rate is in NYC? Mayor Bloomberg, a lib, right?
Numbers like that are SKEWED to say the least. One man CANNOT be blamed for the homicide rates of an entire nation. Local law enforcement is TOTALLY in control of that business, not the White House. Point the finger where it belongs.
KA9VQF
06-02-2006, 12:53 AM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 01 2006,12:09)]Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ June 01 2006,09:59)]If you are going to edit my post please put {edited quote} inside the edited quote.
Trying to change the subject will not help your situation.
The basic "jest" of your post was based on unfounded conspearacy theories that are unproven trying to avoid, it seemed to me, an unconforable situation that you may not like. And all you could do was whine about me taking your post out of context. You couldn't come up with any real hard evidence otherwise. People do it me and others all the time. That part of the deal when you post here.
If I am wrong, post some hard evidence to prove me wrong. Eh, you won't do that. Guys like me who post some facts about Mikey Moore(on) and other liberal lackies will always be "neocons" to you and I shall continue to sleep very well with knowing that fact. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
It's obviously a simple enough thing to do if I can do it. Go ahead and try it sometime.
And while you are at, please it tell me just how long it took for the necessary paperwork from World War Two to become unclassified so people could get them and make the ridiculous claims they are making these days about decades old issues. {hint the war ended in 1945 or so}
I personally think there will be a great fire in the Whitehouse when the republicans leave and there will be no papers left for historians to find and look at.
BTW I never said I had any hard evidence I said it was my personal opinion.
Reading comprehension problem?
Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ June 01 2006,20:28)]I wonder how much percentage of that rate is in NYC? Mayor Bloomberg, a lib, right?
Numbers like that are SKEWED to say the least. One man CANNOT be blamed for the homicide rates of an entire nation. Local law enforcement is TOTALLY in control of that business, not the White House. Point the finger where it belongs.
Wrong. Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican tax raiser. And our (NYC) crime rate is much lower, not through his efforts, but because of the number of cams all over creation here. Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns. Most of our guns have been proven to come from Red State Land illegally. You can't legally buy a gun here without so much red tape that it's a lead pipe cinch they'll turn you down. There's maybe 2 gun shops in the entire city.
Sorry to disappoint you, but he's definitely a Repubican and he's definitely good at raising taxes. As is our Republican Governor.
The numbers are from the CDC. They are their data. I'm not blaming Bush directly, but it seems that there are definite trends that should be dealt with. Well, maybe not the same way he dealt with New Orleans.
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ May 31 2006,19:15)]Whenever somebody sues somebody it makes me wonder. Is he suing for logical indignation of being wronged?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif ...for his own egotistical desire to get publicised?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif....or just to make money for himself?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I tend to suspect that the last query is most often the reason. When someone changes his opinion by 180 degrees we can see that either he no longer agrees with himself or he wants to get money from those he agreed with at first... but who didn't pay him well for his original opinion. Again the latter case is more likely.
I hope the wounded man who was misrepresented gets his day in court, and I hope Michael Moore pays through the nose. Moore thought he do as he pleased to commit false witness about this man, and thought the man would be powerless to defend his honor. Screw Moore and all users who think they can trample the misfortunate.
Moore could have had a nice, anti-war and anti-Bush film and I would have applauded it, but he choose to commit numerous acts of deliberate prevarication that quite frankly disgust me to the core. Mean people suck, and so does Moore.
kd5rpo
06-02-2006, 03:19 AM
I remain open minded about this issue. I have not drawn any conclusion yet because I have not seen the film.
How many of you have? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 01 2006,07:39)]To me, the big Moore travesty is that he won the academy award for best documentary picture. Nobody in their right mind, including real documentarians themselves, considers Farenheit 9/11 a documentary film of any sort.
Indeed.
FWIW, I was a real Moore fan after his movie Roger & Me where he supposedly chases Roger Smith, the CEO of GM who is cutting jobs in Michigan and creating jobs in Mexico. A series of thought-provoking interviews with various people were humorously and intelligently filmed in a deliciously multiple-entendre wit that I found quite delightful.
Unfortunately, I discovered some years later that the central premise of the film was total BS, and that in fact, Roger Smith agreed to several interviews. It is this huge but characteristic penchant to publically rape the Truth that exposes Michael Moore as one of the most disturbed idealogues on the planet.
Viewed philosophically, Moore is an effective ally of the right: He does not change any minds with his pack of lies, but he does alienate anyone who respects the Truth.
Michael Moore films should be rated <span style='color:red'>XXXX</span> for lewd, perverse, forcible molestation of the virgin Truth.
w8cbc
06-02-2006, 05:54 AM
w5klb: Quote[/b] ]Maybe you can convence the other Prols of this but most people who have a firm grasp of reality and real facts know better.
I discuss the issue. You resort to personal attacks.
Shove it.
http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/feelthelove.jpg
w5klb
06-02-2006, 07:05 AM
Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ June 01 2006,17:53)]BTW #I never said I had any hard evidence I said it was my personal opinion.
Reading comprehension problem?
It seems to me that you are basing that opinion on mere speculation. You need facts and what made you appear to be upset with me is that you have no facts to back up your claims.
Once again, if I am wrong on my facts, give me some hard evidence to back up those claims. Until then OM, you are "preaching to the choir".
BTW, I read just fine, thankyouverymuch. You just need to back your conspearacy theories with some proof. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Now back to the thread.
w5klb
06-02-2006, 07:44 AM
Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ June 01 2006,22:54)]
I discuss the issue. #You resort to personal attacks.
Shove it.
"Take this [thread] and shove it
I ain't [posting] here no more..."
You just pegged my "Liberal Double Standards" meter.
I noticed that you and your fellow libs have no problems of calling people on the other side of the aisle "neocons" or "extreamist". See, the difference between you and me is the fact that I don't take anyone's posting here that serious. I learned my lessons about this a looong time ago.
Life continues... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 02 2006,00:44)]Life continues... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] (kd5rpo @ June 01 2006,23:19)]I remain open minded about this issue. I have not drawn any conclusion yet because I have not seen the film.
How many of you have? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I have. The first half was pretty compelling. The second half was not. I was not impressed with the arguements he made in that part of the film. It seemed as if Moore was stretching to make most of his points after the middle of the film. I wasn't convinced by the way that was presented. The first half was at times impressive.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]...#Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,02:45)]The first half was at times impressive.
I admit I went into the film with an anti-Moore bias, but ALL of it seemed like blatant BS to me. I would be interested in someone like AK7V or K9STH opinion about the movie.
I remember a study that was made once where a carefully balanced debate was presented where the audience was polled for both their political leanings and for whom they thought won the debate. It was a perfect one-for-one: Audience members who agreed with side-"A" thought that the A-side contestant had won, and it was the same for "B". The more extremely they were a believer in their side going into the debate, the more dramatically they thought their guy had won the debate.
We are all fallible, and knowing that is a part of maturity, wisdom, and humanity.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 01 2006,19:43)].
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, I discovered some years later that the central premise of the film was total BS, and that in fact, Roger Smith agreed to several interviews. It is this huge but characteristic penchant to publically rape the Truth that exposes Michael Moore as one of the most disturbed idealogues on the planet.
Really?
If true, this will significantly change my view of Michael Moore. I will do the research...
Dave WX7B
Sonoma County, Ca
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ May 31 2006,20:54)][quote=KE5FRF,June 01 2006,20:28]
The numbers are from the CDC. #They are their data. #
That explains that. #CDC is not exactly a gun friendly or gun neutrial organization.
Since you like looking up data, you may want to do some spot comparisons. #Areas with the highest crime and death rates by guns are citys and states with the most stringent gun control laws in place. #Washington DC (and now Canada) is a real good comparison. #
You may also want to examine the ratio of repeat criminals who are involved in shootings vs folks who are legally licensed and trained to own firearms. #The data will show that 2% that are complete idiots are creating problems for the other 98%.
I no longer have the energy to hash out the Farenheit 9/11 movie details. #I don't even have enough memory of it to discuss it fairly. #Let's just say that he left out tons of things that would conflict with his editorial views and moulded the presentation to support them. #This was hardly acceptable in Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North or Louisiana Story and shouldn't be acceptable as a "documentary" today.
I do remember thinking it was a very well crafted to its intended audience (aka The Choir). #Much like the Columbine movie was -- which garnered countless approving nods, chuckles, and self-satisfied "mmm-hmms" from the hip, urban Seattle theatre audience. #It was so over-the-top, though, that many people who go in disagreeing with Moore aren't going to bother looking at his arguments (like 7B and NewsMax). #Those that do look at them have found problems and posted them on the web or made their own movies. #All fine and dandy.
Personally, I am troubled with a "documentary" film full of misrepresentation by omission (or otherwise) -- especially one comprised of images and sounds of actual people (not necessarilly just public figures) being taken out of context or taken advantage of in the editing room. #I have an easier time handling, ethically, a biased editorial or news item shouted by Rush Limbaugh or printed by NewsMax or NBC. #
I am uncomfortable with manipulating other human beings' images and voices to make your own editorial point -- especially one they might not be aware of or comfortable with, and especially under a "compassionate" guise and on the big screen, as a spectacle. #
All in all, though, I think it was a pretty useless film. #Same with the Columbine one. #It didn't have much of a point. #Didn't make many solid arguments. #Not a whole lot to argue against because it didn't say much of anything. #Just generated partisan noise to get people excited. #Entertainment? #Yes. #Thought provoking - in some cases, yes -- in others, thought-replacing. #Good, clean fun? #No.
Quote[/b] (kd5rpo @ June 01 2006,14:19)]I remain open minded about this issue. I have not drawn any conclusion yet because I have not seen the film.
How many of you have? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I have seen the film. I believe I remember the guy who is the topic of discussion here in the interview. It appeared that he was working very hard to maintain the proper composure for the interview and that he was being very deliberate in his interview to get his story of his pain across. The movie did not seem to have snippetts of interviews howing only the soundbites desired. This one was maybe a full minute from the guy. I am going from memory. I don't remember him bashing Bush or the military, but he was telling his story of how he became injured and the viewer has sympathy for his plight.
Maybe he supported the whole thing. I have no way of knowing, but I think that he probably did. Then Moore puts him on a film that decries the military action there, and 2 years later he decides to cash in. We know that the vast right wing conspiracy paid for a nose job for one of Clinton's girl friends to keep her on their leash. I don't know if they are getting this guy some "Rush Baby" Oxy Contin or not.
Was the movie 100% accurate? I doubt it. What is? The only way I know to be 100% accurate is to write your own definitions based on your story and add slop. A lot of the big time naysayers say that Bush flew the bin Laden families out of the US the day after Moore said he did. All I saw was hairsplitters like that.
Was it entertaining? Too depressing. I miss the day where we could make fun of our leader's mistakes and criticize them for their massive errors without being chastized for doing that.
Once you see the film, ask yourself what conclusions you may draw. The verbiage played in the movie are actual words of the people being interviewed. The Fox story say this guy's story comes after McDermott says thet they are leaving all kinds of vetrans behind. Then the soldier now says that he wasn't left behind because he was dependent on a charity to build a home for him. It doesn't say if he reimbursed the charity with government windfalls.
Well anyway, it looks like today, frivolous lawsuits are popular on QRZ. Damon will have an uphill battle in winning this one. I really don't see where he will prove a case of mental anguish and loss of reputation. Who knows?
W2ILP
06-02-2006, 06:37 PM
If Moore is an opportunist; what is Bush?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Opportunity knocked more than once for G.W. Bush and IMHO he blew it every time. Unfortunately he is still blowing it and what GWB has done to the well being and security of the USA is a lot worse than anything that Mike Moore could ever do, even if he has exaggerated some video bites for entertainment purposes. He can't be blamed for the fact that Dubbu looks like Johnny Carson and thus like a comedian playing a fool for a double take.
In his speech just yesterday GWB said the U.S. economy has recently greatly improved. I dunno if he even looked at the figures for the last two quarters. How can people let him get away with such lies?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Yep...But the Enron leaders were found guilty of lying about the Enron profitability ...but when Bush lies about the profitability of the U.S. economy he seems to get away with it. I think it is because the gullible Americans want to believe that we can have an economy that pays for bullets and butter while reducing taxes...without it eventually leading to disaster. Enron's downfall destroyed many Enron workers and shareholders but Bush' lies will continue to destroy the entire USA if he is not impeached.
w2ilp (Impeach Lying President)
Since Bush is so awful, it should be easy to expose him with unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty.
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,05:50)]Since Bush is so awful, it should be easy to expose him with unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty.
What clued you in that he is awful?
When the story of Monica came out, coworkers came to me and asked whether I thought that this Clinton story was true. I agreed that it was most likely true even though I had no "unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty" evidence. Was the economy suffering at the time? No, it was booming as a nation. Were we losing thousands of US soldiers in battle? No. Was the stock market floundering? No, it was rising steadily. Were my taxes going up? No they were going down. What about gasoline prices? Well, you get the picture.
7V, what do you expect from your president? Just a half fast job is fine for you? You expect him to properly sit there on his thumb? Would you expect him to understand where the oil goes to after it comes out of the pipe opposite of where al2i is?
Quote[/b] ]AUDIENCE MEMBER: I would like to ask one question about the Alaskan pipeline. My understanding is that most of that supply does not come to the United States, and I would like to know why that goes to other countries rather than to where it's needed here, so that we can --
DUBYA: You mean the crude oil coming down the pipeline?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, sir.
DUBYA: I don't know where it goes, to be honest with you. Sorry. I can find out.
-- Sun City Center, Florida, May 9, 2006
Who cares that the guy wants to make energy policy and he doesn't even know where our energy resources end up? Do we just care that little for our nation that we just don't care who is calling the shots?
To me, this is sad. This is very sad. And you want someone to use unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty to expose what? A sex scandal? Incompetence is everyday news, and that does not make a difference.
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 02 2006,12:20)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,05:50)]Since Bush is so awful, it should be easy to expose him with unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty.
What clued you in that he is awful?
'Cuz he talks funny.
Quote[/b] ]
When the story of Monica came out, coworkers came to me and asked whether I thought that this Clinton story was true. #I agreed that it was most likely true even though I had no "unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty" evidence. #Was the economy suffering at the time? #No, it was booming as a nation. #Were we losing thousands of US soldiers in battle? #No. #Was the stock market floundering? #No, it was rising steadily. #Were my taxes going up? #No they were going down. #What about gasoline prices? #Well, you get the picture.
Here we go with the right-wingers always dragging Clinton in. #Clinton's not president anymore, got it, station? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] ]
7V, what do you expect from your president? #Just a half fast job is fine for you? #You expect him to properly sit there on his thumb? #Would you expect him to understand where the oil goes to after it comes out of the pipe opposite of where al2i is?
I want much more than what we have now. #I don't expect a whole lot more, though, from most people. #I have to throw my support behind the person who I think is coming from a philosophy closest to my own. #Even a brilliant, informed, genius communist wouldn't get my vote because we have core philosophical differences, and I'd be afraid he'd turn the world into something I find especially abhorrent.
I don't consider myself that into politics, though. #Not compared to some of you. #I try and vote for the guy least likely to take my stuff. #I'm more interested in, and still trying to "figure out," philosophy. #I view politics as sort of a practical application of philosophy. #Problem is, if you try and use philosophical tools in political discussion, people tend to resist. I'm not sure what some people are building their politics on.
Quote[/b] ]
Who cares that the guy wants to make energy policy and he doesn't even know where our energy resources end up? #Do we just care that little for our nation that we just don't care who is calling the shots? #
To me, this is sad. #This is very sad. #And you want someone to use unabashed, thorough, non-decpetive honesty to expose what? #A sex scandal? #Incompetence is everyday news, and that does not make a difference.
You sound like me when I complain about some politician making gun policy without any knowledge of how guns work. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's a sad fact that few politicians know much about anything important to us.
I bet Cheney knows where that pipe empties, though. #In his back pocket! #hah hah HAH! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (WX7B @ June 02 2006,10:16)].
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, I discovered some years later that the central premise of the film was total BS, and that in fact, Roger Smith agreed to several interviews. It is this huge but characteristic penchant to publically rape the Truth that exposes Michael Moore as one of the most disturbed idealogues on the planet.
Really?
If true, this will significantly change my view of Michael Moore. I will do the research...
Dave WX7B
Sonoma County, Ca
Here are some of Moore's alleged lies:
Quote[/b] ]A Very Brief List of Some of Moore’s Lies
From “Roger And Me”:
* The movie’s cash register story is false.
* Roger Smith did consent to a sit-down interview with Moore.
* Moore isn’t — as he claims — from Flint. He was actually raised in the upper-crust, nearly all-white suburb of Davison, Michigan.
From “Bowling For Columbine”
* Moore claims Canada and America have roughly the same racial mixture. In fact, Canada is 2% Black. The U.S. is 13% Black.
* The gun Moore receives in the bank he was actually given unloaded on another day.
* The NRA rally in Columbine shown in the film was planned before — not after — the Columbine school shootings.
* Heston didn’t make the “cold, dead hands’ comment shown in the film at Columbine. Moore combined footage from an event in North Carolina a year later.
* Heston didn’t arrange a pro-gun rally in Michigan following another shooting. The event was a political fundraiser and in a different town than the one in which the shooting took place.
From “Fahrenheit 9/11”
* The date on the newspaper which claims Gore really won the 2000 election was altered — as it appears was the newspaper headline’s type size.
* Moore’s claim that almost all major media outlets question whether Bush received more votes than Gore in Florida in 2000 is false. Even a study undertaken by The New York Times and The Associated Press ultimately concluded that Bush did receive more votes in Florida than Gore did.
* Bin Laden family members in the U.S. weren’t secretly spirited back to Saudi Arabia by the Secret Service after 9/11 without being questioned. Nor was Bush behind their exit. The decision to let them leave was made by Bush critic and sometime aide Richard Clarke. The 9/11 Commission investigated Moore’s claims about the event and debunked them — and Moore had weeks before the release of his movie during which he could have corrected this.
* The happy Iraqis shown lolling about in Baghdad before 9/11 — supposedly representative of the pre-invasion population of the country — aren’t. The building shown in the film before which they stand was the Iraqi Defense Ministry. Only Ba’ath Party members were allowed anywhere near it. Most every opinion poll clearly a clear majority of Iraqis are glad Hussein was overthrown.
* Moore claimed Bush lied in referring to intelligence reports that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. The 9/11 commission — and such liberal journalists as Scott Woodward - have determined that Bush examined these reports critically, and that he was only gradually persuaded of their accuracy. Further, it now turns out that even Bush critic Joseph Wilson, who first cast doubt on these claims in an oped in the Times, wrote a report saying that the yellowcake story might well be true. And evidence increasingly suggests that it was true.
* Moore knew for over a year before its release that Walt Disney would not release the film. It is not true, as he has claimed, that Disney suddenly sprung this on him near the film’s proposed release date.
* Moore seems to say the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. This is, of course, absurd. As The New York Post’s Jonathan Foreman pointed out, “the Bushes aren’t billionaires.” If you watch the film a second time you’ll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.”
* It is not true that the Afghan War was undertaken to profit a gas pipeline being built by Unocal. In fact, Unocal no longer has anything to do with the project and hasn’t since 1998.
* It is not true that no congressman have children serving in the active duty military. Two Senators do — as does Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This is from New Partisan (http://www.newpartisan.com/home/our-man-asks-moore-sir-have-you-no-sense-of-decency.html)
KC4HGH
06-02-2006, 09:57 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,17:03)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 01 2006,15:15)]
Yeah, #Yeeaghhh. #That #*@*# was bashing my buddy Clinton in that movie. #He was talking about how easy the Clinton was in allowing the flow of firearms to be proliferated throughout the country. #Thank heavens we have a more strict policy now on guns after Clinton got out of there!
From the CDC site:
<span style='color:red'>Firearm Homicides/Rate per 100,000</span>
Clinton's Administration
1999 # # #10,828 # # # # 3.88/100,000
2000 # # #10,801 # # # # 3.84/100,000
Bush's Administration
2001 # # #11,348 # # # # #3.98/100,000
2002 # # #11,829 # # # # 4.11/100,000
2003 # # #11,920 # # # # 4.10/100,000
Rates prior to 1999 not comparable according to CDC.
I'll betcha these later figures are based on law-abiding gun owners who were finally fed up with the status quo and decided to actually SHOOTING and KILLING the criminals invading their homes, raping, pillaging, etc. THEN, "they" skew the numbers for their benefit and to #e!! with the law abiding tax payer, huh!?!?
W2ILP
06-02-2006, 10:01 PM
Al2i
A very brief QUOTE about your QUOTE by w2ilp follows:-
Hmmmm...I don't think that your disagreement with Moore's depictions are brief...BUT if so the larger truths that Moore has made against GWB must be far greater.
GWB is a lier. Every nation knows it. The U.N. knows it. Our own fighting forces know it. If you don't know it you may not have been paying attention.
Now everyone seemed to know that Bill Clinton seemed to be lying about Lewinsky (although his wife claimed that she didn't). The world didn't care. The U.N. didn't care. I didn't care. Only snoops,prudes, and yentas really cared about Clinton's private sexual affair with Lewinsky. I still don't think Bill had sex with Monica...only a B.J. which dripped on her black dress. She carefully saved the dress. Why? To black-mail Clinton?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif She might have been an agent of Bin Laden or more likely of Israel, who was sent to Washington, DC to purposely upset our government without crashing into buildings...but when I tell that to most folks they say it is just one of ILP's alleged lies. They don't care. I don't want to quote them about that because there hasn't been an adult movie depicting the whole affair in detail yet....and when there is... it will be debated like the DaVinci Code movie...but followed by sequels based on well flipped and spun QUOTES.
w2ilp (Ignoramus's Lost Permission)...when mutual consent becomes public descent there are lots of disjointed QUOTES made. Somewhere there may be a merger of political dogma with the truth but the truth is not usually in QUOTES...it is only in reality.
Where Law ends...Tyrany begins.
--William Pitt--
Where truth ends....Quotes guess.
--w2ilp--
KF0RT
06-02-2006, 10:51 PM
The CDC firearm homicide figures are interesting...
The Statistical Abstract of The United States (published by the U.S. Census Bureau) doesn't agree.
For 2002 (just as an example), the Abstract says there were 14,274 murders in the U.S. and that 66.8% of them were committed with firearms, for a total of 9,635.
Not exactly off by an order of magnitude, but that's a bit different than 11,829. I wonder why the almost 20% difference?
73, Rob
W2ILP
06-02-2006, 11:57 PM
KF0RT
I don't think that this is a subject to joke about but...If 66.8% of murders were committed by firearms then it is most probable that 33.2% of murders might have been committed without firearms.
Oh Ahhh....,Just think of how many more people would have been killed if those 33.2% of lousy murderers were NRA members and had had efficient automatic firearms!!!
w2ilp ( I Loath Pistols) and 35 millimeter repeaters.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 02 2006,14:10)]This is from New Partisan (http://www.newpartisan.com/home/our-man-asks-moore-sir-have-you-no-sense-of-decency.html)
That's a mighty fancy blog - thanks for introducing it, Mr. McGraw. I agree with the McCarthy - Moore parallel mentioned. Sloppy, crass, and dishonest argument dominating public debate turns many people off of and ultimately overshadows the core issues. Not that it _should_, but it does. Myriad examples abound. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
W2ILP
06-03-2006, 01:35 AM
I don't want to make any more jokes about this rather serious subject...BUT
The man who Mooore interviewed was hospitalized and under the influence of pain killers. # Even his doctors might not know if or WHEN the pain killers became brain killers.
w2ilp (Influencial Later "Pains")
W8EFA
06-03-2006, 02:06 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 02 2006,17:10)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ June 02 2006,10:16)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 01 2006,19:43)].
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, I discovered some years later that the central premise of the film was total BS, and that in fact, Roger Smith agreed to several interviews. #It is this huge but characteristic penchant to publically rape the Truth that exposes Michael Moore as one of the most disturbed idealogues on the planet. #
Really?
If true, this will significantly change my view of Michael Moore. I will do the research...
Dave WX7B
Sonoma County, Ca
Here are some of Moore's alleged lies:
Quote[/b] ]A Very Brief List of Some of Moore’s Lies
From “Roger And Me”:
# #* The movie’s cash register story is false.
# #* Roger Smith did consent to a sit-down interview with Moore.
# #* Moore isn’t — as he claims — from Flint. He was actually raised in the upper-crust, nearly all-white suburb of Davison, Michigan.
From “Bowling For Columbine”
# #* Moore claims Canada and America have roughly the same racial mixture. In fact, Canada is 2% Black. The U.S. is 13% Black.
# #* The gun Moore receives in the bank he was actually given unloaded on another day.
# #* The NRA rally in Columbine shown in the film was planned before — not after — the Columbine school shootings.
# #* Heston didn’t make the “cold, dead hands’ comment shown in the film at Columbine. Moore combined footage from an event in North Carolina a year later.
# #* Heston didn’t arrange a pro-gun rally in Michigan following another shooting. The event was a political fundraiser and in a different town than the one in which the shooting took place.
From “Fahrenheit 9/11”
# #* The date on the newspaper which claims Gore really won the 2000 election was altered — as it appears was the newspaper headline’s type size.
# #* Moore’s claim that almost all major media outlets question whether Bush received more votes than Gore in Florida in 2000 is false. Even a study undertaken by The New York Times and The Associated Press ultimately concluded that Bush did receive more votes in Florida than Gore did.
# #* Bin Laden family members in the U.S. weren’t secretly spirited back to Saudi Arabia by the Secret Service after 9/11 without being questioned. Nor was Bush behind their exit. The decision to let them leave was made by Bush critic and sometime aide Richard Clarke. The 9/11 Commission investigated Moore’s claims about the event and debunked them — and Moore had weeks before the release of his movie during which he could have corrected this.
# #* The happy Iraqis shown lolling about in Baghdad before 9/11 — supposedly representative of the pre-invasion population of the country — aren’t. The building shown in the film before which they stand was the Iraqi Defense Ministry. Only Ba’ath Party members were allowed anywhere near it. Most every opinion poll clearly a clear majority of Iraqis are glad Hussein was overthrown.
# #* Moore claimed Bush lied in referring to intelligence reports that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. The 9/11 commission — and such liberal journalists as Scott Woodward - have determined that Bush examined these reports critically, and that he was only gradually persuaded of their accuracy. Further, it now turns out that even Bush critic Joseph Wilson, who first cast doubt on these claims in an oped in the Times, wrote a report saying that the yellowcake story might well be true. And evidence increasingly suggests that it was true.
# #* Moore knew for over a year before its release that Walt Disney would not release the film. It is not true, as he has claimed, that Disney suddenly sprung this on him near the film’s proposed release date.
# #* Moore seems to say the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. This is, of course, absurd. As The New York Post’s Jonathan Foreman pointed out, “the Bushes aren’t billionaires.” If you watch the film a second time you’ll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.”
# #* It is not true that the Afghan War was undertaken to profit a gas pipeline being built by Unocal. In fact, Unocal no longer has anything to do with the project and hasn’t since 1998.
# #* It is not true that no congressman have children serving in the active duty military. Two Senators do — as does Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This is from New Partisan (http://www.newpartisan.com/home/our-man-asks-moore-sir-have-you-no-sense-of-decency.html)
Do you have any other sources? #This is just a glorified group Blog site to me.
Here is the Editors experience
Salvatore Borriello is from Queens but now resides in Brooklyn. He studied at Queensborough Community College and has a liberal arts BA from Sarah Lawrence College.
A BA in Liberal arts? #Not even a Bachelor in Journalism which is required for a beginning reporter?
Here is the Associate Editor
Silvia de Miranda was born and raised in New York City. She is a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College
Again not enough education to land a Cub reporters job.
Some of what they say may be true - some is obvious propoganda and picking on non-important issues which makes me doubt the veracity of their article.
ie.
Heston didn’t make the “cold, dead hands’ comment shown in the film at Columbine. Moore combined footage from an event in North Carolina a year later.
So I never thought he did - he said it right there on the screen who cares where?
ie.
The date on the newspaper which claims Gore really won the 2000 election was altered — as it appears was the newspaper headline’s type size.
This is obvious Propoganda as OF COURSE it was altered as it was part of the Story musing how much better things would be if Gore was elected! #
The happy Iraqis shown lolling about in Baghdad before 9/11 — supposedly representative of the pre-invasion population of the country — aren’t. The building shown in the film before which they stand was the Iraqi Defense Ministry. Only Ba’ath Party members were allowed anywhere near it. Most every opinion poll clearly a clear majority of Iraqis are glad Hussein was overthrown.
Again completely false charge. #The Film clearly notes how rich and prosperous Iraq was before their Kuwait invasion. #Which they were one of the wealthiest countries in the World, by far the most progressive Arab country, and had a 97% literacy rate which he was showing.
As Moore himself said
Quote[/b] ]MICHAEL MOORE, It is an op-ed piece.
It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush Administration and that is what I call it.
I am not trying to pretend that this is some sort of fair and balanced work of journalism.
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! Thank you very much. I was just waiting for someone to write that. I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
W8EFA
06-03-2006, 02:21 AM
Quote[/b] ]Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
That has to be the stupidest mainstream line ever.
How many people kill other people by pointing their finger at them.
For every Gun killing, how many people would have died if the killer didn't have a gun and had to kill them with their bare hands?
Of course people kill people. Guns make it very easy however and to pretend they don't is ludicrous.
In America you will never have legitimate firearms taken away, But why Gun enthusiasts are against registering and record checking and banning true assault automatic weapons is beyond me.
Quote[/b] ]Hmmmm...I don't think that your disagreement with Moore's depictions are brief...BUT if so the larger truths that Moore has made against GWB must be far greater.
Moore discredits legitimate anti-Bush forces with his unecessary and completely counter-productive prevarications on film. Logical and fair-minded thinkers are automatically driven to be somewhat sympathetic of anyone attacked as deceptively as Moore attacked Bush. The pro-Bush camp was done more good by Moore than they could possibly have done for themselves.
I did give the short list. You may read a longer one here:
Long List of Deceptions in an Award-Winning "Documentary" (http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf)
W8EFA
06-03-2006, 03:53 AM
Moore discredits legitimate anti-Bush forces with his unecessary and completely counter-productive prevarications on film. #Logical and fair-minded thinkers are automatically driven to be somewhat sympathetic of anyone attacked as deceptively as Moore attacked Bush. #The pro-Bush camp was done more good by Moore than they could possibly have done for themselves.
I did give the short list. #You may read a longer one here:
Long List of Deceptions in an Award-Winning "Documentary" (http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf)[/quote]
Quote[/b] ]6.
“In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.” As the Washington Post reported, the figure includes weekends, and includes time in “vacation locations” such as Camp David, where Bush was working—as when he met with Tony Blair.
News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post #calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” #Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
Just reporting known facts
Quote[/b] ]8.
There is no evidence that Bush did not read the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing about al Qaeda.
August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. #Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. #A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. #We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. #Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/
04/10/whitehouse.pdf
“The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.
On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing.
“President Bush swung into vacation mode Monday, fishing for bass in his pond, strolling the canyons on his 1,600-acre ranch, taking an early-morning run. #Associated Press, “President Bush Vacationing in Texas,” August 6, 2001. #
Quote[/b] ]12.
According to Richard Clarke and the September 11 Commission, Clarke personally approved the Saudi departures,
and the decision went no higher in the chain of command.
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf
“Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. #And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. #We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003. #
“I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. #And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. #Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.” #Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004.
Quote[/b] ]11.
The Saudis left the U.S. only after air travel was opened for the general public.
TheSt. Petersburg Times reported on Jun 9, 2004:
o "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. #The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country.”
o Moreover: “For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose… The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.
o #"Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.” #Jean Heller, “TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.” #St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004
Quote[/b] ]15.
James Bath did not invest bin Laden family money in Bush’s energy company Arbusto. He invested his own money.
See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C
(“I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas.” Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.
“According to a 1976 trust agreement, drawn shortly after [George H. W.] Bush was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. Binladen appointed Bath as his business representative in Houston. Binladen, along with his brothers, owns Binladen Brothers Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.” #Jerry Urban, “Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992.
I could go on and on but once again you have posted another Blog site that doesn't have their facts straight and are blogging lies.
KF0RT
06-03-2006, 11:22 AM
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 02 2006,17:57)]I don't think that this is a subject to joke about but...If 66.8% of murders were committed by firearms then it is most probable that 33.2% of murders might have been committed without firearms.
Your powers of observation are astute! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Oh Ahhh....,Just think of how many more people would have been killed if those 33.2% of lousy murderers were NRA members and had had efficient automatic firearms!!!
I doubt it. NRA members tend to be the "gun enthusiasts" not the "murderers." Automatic firearms have been banned for some time -- 1934??
Quote[/b] ]w2ilp ( I Loath Pistols) and 35 millimeter repeaters.
The only 35mm I shoot with is a Minolta (full auto, baby!). If there's a firearm of that caliber, I'm not aware of it. 35mm is 1.37" -- anything over .5" (.50 caliber) is illegal. That'd be one helluva pistol!!
73, Rob
N7RJD
06-03-2006, 11:33 AM
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ June 02 2006,22:22)]The only 35mm I shoot with is a Minolta (full auto, baby!). If there's a firearm of that caliber, I'm not aware of it. 35mm is 1.37" -- anything over .5" (.50 caliber) is illegal. That'd be one helluva pistol!!
73, Rob
Two thoughts come to mind.
1) Recoil
2) Dislocated Shoulder http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 02 2006,20:53)]“The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.
On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing.
“President Bush swung into vacation mode Monday, fishing for bass in his pond, strolling the canyons on his 1,600-acre ranch, taking an early-morning run. Associated Press, “President Bush Vacationing in Texas,” August 6, 2001.
It sure must be nice to be born into privilege. Once he won the election, Bush acted like the hard work was over and it was finally OK to loaf around.
Nevertheless, Moore should have stuck to the facts, as they are damning and more powerful when unadulterated and presented without deception. Just like so many talk radio hosts however, Moore made a killing by preaching to the choir.
(That one's for you Dave/XB http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif )
To see someone's torturous defence of a liar because they are blinded by partisan loyalty, you can read the O'Reilly thread.
W2ILP
06-03-2006, 05:19 PM
My last comment here will be my belief that Moore is on the right track to SOCIAL JUSTICE and GWB is not. #Those who have blind faith in Bush might never accept Moore's point of view. #I myself see that GWB does not use the terms "democracy' or "freedom" to mean SOCIAL JUSTICE, nor is he beyond fooling the American voting public to follow inhumane policies that can certainly be seen to be in his and his cronies personal economic interest. # All that Moore has portrayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11" may not be any further proof for those who don't see Bush as Moore sees him...but at least it is a wake up call to question GWB's omnipotence. #It is too bad that there were not enough people like Moore in Germany when Hitler came to power...but I will say that Americans have a right to criticize our government, that might not have been safe for humanists living under NAZI rule. #If anything Moore's film shows that he is displaying a right to balance the propaganda that has been fed to sincere but gullible Americans by the Bush administration....Hopefully with more truth than pure propaganda. # Moore has shown that our Emperor has no cloths...It is only a matter of "he said - she said - they said" for opponents of Moore to try to put a jock strap back on Bush. # Such cover-ups can't hide the basic fact that we were led into an unnecessary inhumane war by pandering to our fear of 9/11 terrorism under the power of an idiot president.
w2ilp (I Like Peace)
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 02 2006,13:46)]Quote[/b] ]Hmmmm...I don't think that your disagreement with Moore's depictions are brief...BUT if so the larger truths that Moore has made against GWB must be far greater.
Moore discredits legitimate anti-Bush forces with his unecessary and completely counter-productive prevarications on film. #Logical and fair-minded thinkers are automatically driven to be somewhat sympathetic of anyone attacked as deceptively as Moore attacked Bush. #The pro-Bush camp was done more good by Moore than they could possibly have done for themselves.
I did give the short list. #You may read a longer one here:
Long List of Deceptions in an Award-Winning "Documentary" (http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf)
Most, if not all of these are hair splitters. If hair splitting is proper, then this list needs to be totally debunked because the name of the movie is "Fahrenheit 9/11" and not "Fahrenheit 911" as is listed on this list.
One of the most blatent farces on the list is
Quote[/b] ]18. Harken Energy: Bush only sold the stock after company lawyers told him it was OK.
So, this is saying that his employees told Bush that the stock sale was okay, so he sold. The movie let Bush off the hook on not reporting the SEC investigation that ensued, and he was never really cleared of wrongdoing. They just said that they would stop investigating because he was the president's son.
Details.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! #Thank you very much. #I was just waiting for someone to write that. #I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I can't read the first one because it requires registration. #I didn't see my proof in the hardly-relevant Big-Brother-Bloomburg propaganda piece. #What I'm asking for is proof for the claim that most of the murders with guns occur in "red" states. #The reason I find this hard to believe is that most of the largest cities in the country, with the most violence, are in "blue" states.
I could certainly be wrong - I don't know. ##I looked for stats by state, ranked, on the web but didn't find any. #They have listings by rates but not raw numbers (and when you say "most", you're implying raw numbers).
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 02 2006,19:21)]In America you will never have legitimate firearms taken away, #But why Gun enthusiasts are against registering and record checking and banning true assault automatic weapons is beyond me.
Do you know what the difference between an "assault rifle," a hunting rifle, and an automatic weapon are? Do you know which are legal now? Do you care?
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 05 2006,11:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! Thank you very much. I was just waiting for someone to write that. I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I can't read the first one because it requires registration. I didn't see my proof in the hardly-relevant Big-Brother-Bloomburg propaganda piece. What I'm asking for is proof for the claim that most of the murders with guns occur in "red" states. The reason I find this hard to believe is that most of the largest cities in the country, with the most violence, are in "blue" states.
I could certainly be wrong - I don't know. I looked for stats by state, ranked, on the web but didn't find any. They have listings by rates but not raw numbers (and when you say "most", you're implying raw numbers).
Hokay, let's look at this from another angle:
Quote[/b] ]Violent crime in 2005 increased at the highest rate in 15 years, driven in large part by a surge of killings and other attacks in many Midwestern cities, the FBI reported yesterday.
* LINKY * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200417.html?nav=rss_email/components)
n6hcm
06-13-2006, 08:14 AM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ May 31 2006,16:15)]...for $85 Million dollars. Imagine that.
this is dumb. if this guy had a real issue he'd have filed his lawsuit when fahrenheit 9/11 was a current issue. instead, he files now when nobody's looking and grandstands further with requested damages of $85 million.
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ June 12 2006,21:14)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ May 31 2006,16:15)]...for $85 Million dollars. Imagine that.
this is dumb. #if this guy #had a real issue he'd have filed his lawsuit when fahrenheit 9/11 was a current issue. #instead, he files now when nobody's looking and grandstands further with requested damages of $85 million. #
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Hey, give this brave soldier a break. #Maybe you don't know it, but he is a double amputee from his wounds and the jerk off Moore, used imagery of him without consent, indicating that he supported Moore, which he did not.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 12 2006,23:52)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 05 2006,11:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! #Thank you very much. #I was just waiting for someone to write that. #I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I can't read the first one because it requires registration. #I didn't see my proof in the hardly-relevant Big-Brother-Bloomburg propaganda piece. #What I'm asking for is proof for the claim that most of the murders with guns occur in "red" states. #The reason I find this hard to believe is that most of the largest cities in the country, with the most violence, are in "blue" states. #
I could certainly be wrong - I don't know. # I looked for stats by state, ranked, on the web but didn't find any. #They have listings by rates but not raw numbers (and when you say "most", you're implying raw numbers).
Hokay, let's look at this from another angle:
Quote[/b] ]Violent crime in 2005 increased at the highest rate in 15 years, driven in large part by a surge of killings and other attacks in many Midwestern cities, the FBI reported yesterday.
* LINKY * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200417.html?nav=rss_email/components)
All this talk about rates increasing or decreasing does not support a claim about absolute numbers. If I say that N2NH makes more money than AK7V, and support it by pointing out that you received a 5% raise, I still haven't proven my point. Get it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's not really important. I just think you should be careful when you say that more "gun crime" happens in red states when you don't have absolute numbers to back it up.
You may be right. But I have no reason to believe you.
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 13 2006,17:59)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 12 2006,23:52)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 05 2006,11:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! Thank you very much. I was just waiting for someone to write that. I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I can't read the first one because it requires registration. I didn't see my proof in the hardly-relevant Big-Brother-Bloomburg propaganda piece. What I'm asking for is proof for the claim that most of the murders with guns occur in "red" states. The reason I find this hard to believe is that most of the largest cities in the country, with the most violence, are in "blue" states.
I could certainly be wrong - I don't know. I looked for stats by state, ranked, on the web but didn't find any. They have listings by rates but not raw numbers (and when you say "most", you're implying raw numbers).
Hokay, let's look at this from another angle:
Quote[/b] ]Violent crime in 2005 increased at the highest rate in 15 years, driven in large part by a surge of killings and other attacks in many Midwestern cities, the FBI reported yesterday.
* LINKY * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200417.html?nav=rss_email/components)
All this talk about rates increasing or decreasing does not support a claim about absolute numbers. If I say that N2NH makes more money than AK7V, and support it by pointing out that you received a 5% raise, I still haven't proven my point. Get it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's not really important. I just think you should be careful when you say that more "gun crime" happens in red states when you don't have absolute numbers to back it up.
You may be right. But I have no reason to believe you.
Quote[/b] ]Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns.
What I've said is that there is a greater majority of murders in Red State land - where there are guns. Not that guns are the reason for the murders. I'm certain that it would be reasonable to believe that most of those murders are committed with knives and by strangulation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 13 2006,15:04)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 13 2006,17:59)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 12 2006,23:52)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 05 2006,11:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 02 2006,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 02 2006,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 01 2006,19:54)]... Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns....
Got proof for that?
I don't believe it.
Thank you! #Thank you very much. #I was just waiting for someone to write that. #I value your skepticism very highly.
PROOF: * Bang Linky * (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/nyregion/27guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1149301167-7xs9q0kPQeAIXUAOk3Kqsw&oref=slogin)
* Bang Bang Linky * (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr051606.pdf)
Now just when was the last time I made that kind of statement without some kind of facts to back it up?
Take your time. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I can't read the first one because it requires registration. #I didn't see my proof in the hardly-relevant Big-Brother-Bloomburg propaganda piece. #What I'm asking for is proof for the claim that most of the murders with guns occur in "red" states. #The reason I find this hard to believe is that most of the largest cities in the country, with the most violence, are in "blue" states. #
I could certainly be wrong - I don't know. # I looked for stats by state, ranked, on the web but didn't find any. #They have listings by rates but not raw numbers (and when you say "most", you're implying raw numbers).
Hokay, let's look at this from another angle:
Quote[/b] ]Violent crime in 2005 increased at the highest rate in 15 years, driven in large part by a surge of killings and other attacks in many Midwestern cities, the FBI reported yesterday.
* LINKY * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200417.html?nav=rss_email/components)
All this talk about rates increasing or decreasing does not support a claim about absolute numbers. #If I say that N2NH makes more money than AK7V, and support it by pointing out that you received a 5% raise, I still haven't proven my point. #Get it? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's not really important. #I just think you should be careful when you say that more "gun crime" happens in red states when you don't have absolute numbers to back it up.
You may be right. #But I have no reason to believe you.
Quote[/b] ]Most of that is in NRA Red State land where there are guns.
What I've said is that there is a greater majority of murders in Red State land - where there are guns. #Not that guns are the reason for the murders. #I'm certain that it would be reasonable to believe that most of those murders are committed with knives and by strangulation. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Got proof for that? #Unsurprisingly, I _still_ don't believe it. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KA8DKT
06-14-2006, 09:16 PM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 01 2006,00:25)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ May 31 2006,19:22)]Moore was right -- the war was sold using fictitious reasons.
Moore(on) is wrong and continues to be wrong.
He was wrong on Columbine and wrong here too. I wouldn't say he "hates" America, he is just mad at the fact that his liberal socialist buddies lost the last TWO elections. So, he resorts to twisting the truth to make it look like that Bush lied. Real history proves otherwise.
The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence. George Tennant, former CIA director and a Klinton holdover (remember him?), RESIGNED for giving such information. Mikey and his group of liberal lackies need to get over it and quit re-writing history.
Sorry, but it was not "bad intelligence". #In fact a number of CIA people got pretty hot under the collar because the intelligence they gave was at the same time either ignored or manipulated and misused.
There never was any connection between Al Queda and Iraq (except maybe the "Q" in their names), there was never any attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake or centrifuge parts and equipment, inspectors had been scouring the country for years for any kind of WMDs and not finding anything at all, and the 9-11 flyers all came from countries other than Iraq (mostly from Saudi Arabia). #The whole rest of the world knew these things which is why they all declined to join bush's "coalition of the willing".
In fact, Iraq was, until bush invaded it, the only country in the Middle East that did not support any international terrorists and had no terrorist training camps within its borders.
It was a lie by bush and his pals. #Get over it, bush lied to you to justify this little war of his that has pushed our national debt higher that it has ever been before (from the lowest it had ever been in recent history). #And to make matters worse, a Communist country holds a substantial portion of that debt. #So, bush has sold you out to the Commies on top of everything else.
Real history is showing this all to be true.
-gary
n6hcm
06-14-2006, 10:11 PM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 13 2006,14:49)]Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ June 12 2006,21:14)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ May 31 2006,16:15)]...for $85 Million dollars. Imagine that.
this is dumb. if this guy had a real issue he'd have filed his lawsuit when fahrenheit 9/11 was a current issue. instead, he files now when nobody's looking and grandstands further with requested damages of $85 million.
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Hey, give this brave soldier a break. Maybe you don't know it, but he is a double amputee from his wounds and the jerk off Moore, used imagery of him without consent, indicating that he supported Moore, which he did not.
K2WH
who cares if he's a double amputee? that doesn't change the fact that he waited two+ years before making his case.
you also don't know that the interview was *actually* used without his consent--that's just what the lawsuit alleges.
KB9ZLB
06-14-2006, 10:20 PM
Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ June 14 2006,19:16)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 01 2006,00:25)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ May 31 2006,19:22)]Moore was right -- the war was sold using fictitious reasons.
Moore(on) is wrong and continues to be wrong.
He was wrong on Columbine and wrong here too. I wouldn't say he "hates" America, he is just mad at the fact that his liberal socialist buddies lost the last TWO elections. So, he resorts to twisting the truth to make it look like that Bush lied. Real history proves otherwise.
The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence. George Tennant, former CIA director and a Klinton holdover (remember him?), RESIGNED for giving such information. Mikey and his group of liberal lackies need to get over it and quit re-writing history.
Sorry, but it was not "bad intelligence". In fact a number of CIA people got pretty hot under the collar because the intelligence they gave was at the same time either ignored or manipulated and misused.
There never was any connection between Al Queda and Iraq (except maybe the "Q" in their names), there was never any attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake or centrifuge parts and equipment, inspectors had been scouring the country for years for any kind of WMDs and not finding anything at all, and the 9-11 flyers all came from countries other than Iraq (mostly from Saudi Arabia). The whole rest of the world knew these things which is why they all declined to join bush's "coalition of the willing".
In fact, Iraq was, until bush invaded it, the only country in the Middle East that did not support any international terrorists and had no terrorist training camps within its borders.
It was a lie by bush and his pals. Get over it, bush lied to you to justify this little war of his that has pushed our national debt higher that it has ever been before (from the lowest it had ever been in recent history). And to make matters worse, a Communist country holds a substantial portion of that debt. So, bush has sold you out to the Commies on top of everything else.
Real history is showing this all to be true.
-gary
Um, yeah. I've read the thread and am greatly distressed by it. It is almost sickening. As for the "There never was any connection...", how do you know this? Do you have proof? I mean good, solid, no-doubt-what-so-ever proof?
Also, about the WMDs...have we heard of the word "hidden"?
--
Okay, back to Moore. He [Moore] made up the majority of his first movie, Correct? So how do we know if he is telling the truth this time ? Isn't it basically "The Boy who cried Wolf"? Should we believe him? If you lie, why should I believe you? Trust is like sand. You can build with it, but it goes away...[i]fast.
In the last two presdintial elections, neither of the canidates were not the best poeple to be president.
And for the democrats: You don't know what Kerry or Gore would have done in the same situation. It could have been the same or it could have been alot worse. I say this because they [Kerry and Gore] will say one thing and do something else. Once again: "The Boy who cried Wolf".
This is all in my humble opinion. I know for a fact not everyone will agree with me and I am willing to take that chance.
And N6HCM:
I care. I care a lot. And I'm sure you would care if you knew the man. I don't...and I still care.
Well, now my interest is definately piqued. I didn't use to hate Bush like I do now, and I think it will be self-instructive to see F911 with my new perspective. I hope to get a chance to rent the movie next week when I am at home.
Quote[/b] (KB9ZLB @ June 14 2006,09:20)]Um, yeah. I've read the thread and am greatly distressed by it. It is almost sickening. As for the "There never was any connection...", how do you know this? Do you have proof? I mean good, solid, no-doubt-what-so-ever proof?
Also, about the WMDs...have we heard of the word "hidden"?
Yeah, you're probably right. I heard that Saddam contracted the Easter Bunny to hide many of the WMD's and Santa Claus to fly his reindeer up to secret US satellites monitoring the situation, blinding our ability to see where they all were put.
No Sept 11 connection (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html)
Quote[/b] ]"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
I would like to know what and why Saddam would give a Saddam about al Qaeda? One reason. They want to attack the US. But wait. Saddam was not involved with attacking the US. Makes no sense. I like the Easter Bunny story better.
Saddam had no reason to converse with al Qaeda. He was a despot in his own right. He had his palaces, he had his friends. Al Qaeda can run sections of your country if you cannot keep them out like Afghanistan. Saddam wanted nothing to do with losing his power. HE HAD NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA. The only connection anyone can draw is to say that there were al Qaeda operatives in his country. And they were/are in the US too, so let's start a regieme change now!
Have a nice day.
Firearm Murder Stats:
Blue States Deaths/100K Red States Deaths/100K
New York 3.68 Texas 5.15
California 5.39 New Mexico 5.96
Illinois 7.71 Nevada 7.70
New Jersey 2.46 Pennsylvania 4.42
Massachusetts 1.29 South Carolina6.51
Washington 2.71 North Carolina6.50
Oregon 2.95 Maryland 9.14
Maine 0.88 Georgia 5.94
Missouri 5.85
Virginia 4.56
Florida 5.28
Kansas 4.65
See Sig Line.
k9kxq
06-14-2006, 11:51 PM
The nasty old neo cons are just lapping this up like an old suck egg hound that they are...
Talk about dumb law suits, this is another that will waste time and money...
kxq
KA8DKT
06-15-2006, 01:24 AM
Quote[/b] (KB9ZLB @ June 14 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ June 14 2006,19:16)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 01 2006,00:25)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ May 31 2006,19:22)]Moore was right -- the war was sold using fictitious reasons.
Moore(on) is wrong and continues to be wrong.
He was wrong on Columbine and wrong here too. I wouldn't say he "hates" America, he is just mad at the fact that his liberal socialist buddies lost the last TWO elections. So, he resorts to twisting the truth to make it look like that Bush lied. Real history proves otherwise.
The "fictitious reasons" for going to Iraq that you are referring to is bad intellegence. George Tennant, former CIA director and a Klinton holdover (remember him?), RESIGNED for giving such information. Mikey and his group of liberal lackies need to get over it and quit re-writing history.
Sorry, but it was not "bad intelligence". #In fact a number of CIA people got pretty hot under the collar because the intelligence they gave was at the same time either ignored or manipulated and misused.
There never was any connection between Al Queda and Iraq (except maybe the "Q" in their names), there was never any attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake or centrifuge parts and equipment, inspectors had been scouring the country for years for any kind of WMDs and not finding anything at all, and the 9-11 flyers all came from countries other than Iraq (mostly from Saudi Arabia). #The whole rest of the world knew these things which is why they all declined to join bush's "coalition of the willing".
In fact, Iraq was, until bush invaded it, the only country in the Middle East that did not support any international terrorists and had no terrorist training camps within its borders.
It was a lie by bush and his pals. #Get over it, bush lied to you to justify this little war of his that has pushed our national debt higher that it has ever been before (from the lowest it had ever been in recent history). #And to make matters worse, a Communist country holds a substantial portion of that debt. #So, bush has sold you out to the Commies on top of everything else.
Real history is showing this all to be true.
-gary
Um, yeah. I've read the thread and am greatly distressed by it. It is almost sickening. As for the "There never was any connection...", how do you know this? Do you have proof? I mean good, solid, no-doubt-what-so-ever proof?
Also, about the WMDs...have we heard of the word "hidden"?
--
Okay, back to Moore. He [Moore] made up the majority of his first movie, Correct? So how do we know if he is telling the truth this time ? Isn't it basically "The Boy who cried Wolf"? Should we believe him? If you lie, why should I believe you? Trust is like sand. You can build with it, but it goes away...[i]fast.
In the last two presdintial elections, neither of the canidates were not the best poeple to be president.
And for the democrats: You don't know what Kerry or Gore would have done in the same situation. It could have been the same or it could have been alot worse. I say this because they [Kerry and Gore] will say one thing and do something else. Once again: "The Boy who cried Wolf".
This is all in my humble opinion. I know for a fact not everyone will agree with me and I am willing to take that chance.
And N6HCM:
I care. I care a lot. And I'm sure you would care if you knew the man. I don't...and I still care.
Hidden, maybe hidden so well even Saddam's own minions couldn't find them. #The UN inspectors, who never got a lot of positive publicity, worked very hard for years looking for and finding nothing. #And, they were using some pretty sophisticated technology. # I had an opportunity to speak with one of the inspectors. #If he was an example of the lot of them, they were a hard working and dedicated group of people, serious about finding stuff. #But they never found anything after the weapons were destroyed in the early '90s.
As to proof of Iraq's non-involvement in world terrorism, well, there has been no credible and substantiated evidence that they did have any involvement other than bush's claims (which turned out to be Powell's embarrassment when the truth came out that the intel and pics he was using to make bush's case to the UN were shown to be concoctions).
Concerning Presidential candidates, I think you missed (intentionally?) the equally probable third possibility: #That Gore or Kerry could have done better.
-gary
ps- As far as anyone can tell, all of the 9-11 terrorists were tracable to other countries (all but 2 were Saudis that had trained in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan), and Al Queda had significant presences in other countries but none that anyone could find in Iraq. None of them were connectable to Iraq in any way.
-g
WA4ABM
06-15-2006, 01:50 AM
Back to the original post. "Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush."
Hurray for him! I would expect that now others who were misrepresented or misquoted in the film will come out of the woodwork too to get a piece of the action.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. (Michael Moore) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
k9kxq
06-15-2006, 05:36 AM
Quote[/b] (WA4ABM @ June 14 2006,20:50)]Back to the original post. #"Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush." #
Hurray for him! #I would expect that now others who were misrepresented or misquoted in the film will come out of the woodwork too to get a piece of the action.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. (Michael Moore) #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You got a link supporting your statement, if not Bravo Sierra a normal for repubs...
kxq
w5klb
06-15-2006, 12:02 PM
Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ June 14 2006,18:24)]Hidden, maybe hidden so well even Saddam's own minions couldn't find them. #The UN inspectors, who never got a lot of positive publicity, worked very hard for years looking for and finding nothing. #And, they were using some pretty sophisticated technology. # I had an opportunity to speak with one of the inspectors. #If he was an example of the lot of them, they were a hard working and dedicated group of people, serious about finding stuff. #But they never found anything after the weapons were destroyed in the early '90s.
You forget history. Bush gave "Bootlicker" a number of opprotunities to come clean concerning his weapons program. All he did was "cheat and retreat". Also did this UN weapons inspector inform you of how many times over the years that the the inspectors were prevented from going to suspected areas? I can remember the news reports during the Klinton years that weapons inspectors were prevented from going into certain areas because it was a violation of "Iraqi sovereignty". At other times they were told to leave. What good did all that sophisicated technology do if they couldn't get free and unfettered access to ALL the suspected sites? The answer is that they couldn't. The "nay sayers" of this war seem to have a "memory of convenience" on these facts.
Quote[/b] ]As to proof of Iraq's non-involvement in world terrorism, well, there has been no credible and substantiated evidence that they did have any involvement other than bush's claims (which turned out to be Powell's embarrassment when the truth came out that the intel and pics he was using to make bush's case to the UN were shown to be concoctions).
I dunno about that. Read this. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html)
Quote[/b] ]Concerning Presidential candidates, I think you missed (intentionally?) the equally probable third possibility: #That Gore or Kerry could have done better.
Yeeeah Right. Gore would "Reinvent America" and Kerry should open a waffle house somewhere. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
GOP is an abbr. for Bravo Sierra.
Apparently Sgt. Peter Damon claims that he was being filmed for a spot on the NBC nightly news or some such news program. If that was the case, he would have signed off and given permission to the news agency to own this video. Then, NBC owns the video. They then have the right to sell this work. The buyer of the footage was Michael Moore. The case seems to revolve around whether Sgt. Peter Damon gave permission to Michael Moore to use this footage in his movie. Moore owned the footage. If I own a Chevrolet, do I need GM's permission to use it as I want just because GM once owned that car? Can GM sue me if I drive down a street they later say they did not want me to drive down with a GM car? I don't think so.
Frivilous lawsuit. Neocons should be outraged.
w5klb
06-15-2006, 12:13 PM
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 15 2006,05:03)]GOP is an abbr. for Bravo Sierra.
Apparently Sgt. Peter Damon claims that he was being filmed for a spot on the NBC nightly news or some such news program. #If that was the case, he would have signed off and given permission to the news agency to own this video. #Then, NBC owns the video. #They then have the right to sell this work. #The buyer of the footage was Michael Moore. #The case seems to revolve around whether Sgt. Peter Damon gave permission to Michael Moore to use this footage in his movie. #Moore owned the footage. #If I own a Chevrolet, do I need GM's permission to use it as I want just because GM once owned that car? #Can GM sue me if I drive down a street they later say they did not want me to drive down with a GM car? #I don't think so.
Frivilous lawsuit. #Neocons should be outraged.
Jerry,
Where did you get this information? Care to post a link so that all of us can "read and heed" for ourselves?
This was my comment. If I give you a TS-520S and say, "Here Gary, this is yours." And you turn around and sell it to someone like ZLB, I may want to sue you over your transaction when I find this out, but it won't do me much good. This is my point. Sorry you feel you need a website to understand this.
Quote[/b] ]You got a link supporting your statement, if not Bravo Sierra a normal for repubs...
How about the link posted with the original post?
Dolt.
ac4ut
06-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 15 2006,05:03)]GOP is an abbr. for Bravo Sierra.
Apparently Sgt. Peter Damon claims that he was being filmed for a spot on the NBC nightly news or some such news program. #If that was the case, he would have signed off and given permission to the news agency to own this video. #Then, NBC owns the video. #They then have the right to sell this work. #The buyer of the footage was Michael Moore. #The c