I Hate Michael Moore and the Government.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Just in case any of you get confused, but I doubt it because the lot of you is an intelligent bunch.

I don't like Bush.

I also HATE Michael Moore. If it isn't his constant socialist ramblings about how he hates our country then it’s his utter hate for Bush all spread out in lies and propaganda that would make the guys who think the government is tapping their phones go:

WTF!?

I don't want to call Michael Moore a liberal because he isn't.

Of course I don't like liberals...I don't like conservatives either.

In fact I'm pretty sure I don't like the government all together. Our government has succeeded in failing so much over the past years that I'm used to it when Bush came around of course I just didn't think it would be that bad.

I also hate every person who thought Clinton was a great leader. I would want to know where the hell that notion came from and give me whatever you are drinking or smoking because that delusion must be pretty awesome.

Clinton sucked and got sucked (lawl). See he had a mediocre foreign policy that he focused on the most and the crappiest domestic policy that cause everything to go downhill in the Bush administration.

When the Bush administration came around they were all like "WTF mates?" and STILL haven't figured out a way to fix the problem. They only went with whatever was good to them and that was to spend more money. Yes! Because our country got into a slow debt starting in the mid 90s that you decide instead of fixing it...YOU'LL START A WAR...AND SPEND MORE MONEY AHHAHAHAHAHHA "I DON'T CARE!" Says President Bush with a grin that annoys you.

I hate Michael Moore because he tricks the Americans into thinking his is right what he talks about because everyone hates Bush. Hurck! If you were too dumb to see that 90% of the content in Fahrenheit 9/11 was false or doctored then your head needs to be promptly shoved up a donkey’s anus for 3 hours.

Just to clear things up.

I also hate that stupid mother Cindy Sheehan who obviously misses her son and I feel bad about the son dying in combat. What she is asking Bush to do is nice...BUT COMPLETELY INSANELY IMPOSSIBLE!

Get out of Iraq...okay George we'll pack things up and leave all those people to battle it out under a new rule that I'm sure will be worse then when Saddam was there. Sure our intentions going into the war were completely pointless, but if you spill some milk on the floor do you just leave it there and hope that it will clean itself up? I doubt it. We made the mess and now we need to clean it up.

I hate John Kerry. Why the hell did the Democrats pick him? He looked like my History teacher with a serious Botox injection and the same attitude that made me want to gnaw my own leg off. If it wasn't his pointless plans or utterly stupid ideas, granted some of them were in theory and MIGHT of worked, then it was his lack of enthusiasm in the race against Bush. When he lost he even seemed like "If you gotta lose you gotta lose."

Whatever.

I also hate those people who said "RECOUNT!" in Ohio.

What? Do you want to constantly remind America that Bush won and make complete idiots out of yourselves? Well you already did that by screaming recount. Don't make it any harder on yourselves.

I am rambling on, but I think my points are valid. The government sucks, Democrat or Republican, Michael Moore and Tim Robbins sucks because they are socialist poisoning America's minds, and Cindy Sheehan sucks because she is defacing her sons honor of dying in battle by doing a pointless protest.

Here is a protest for you.

"WHY DOES EVERYONE FAIL!?"

[NERD]

Politicians are politicians, they just kiss everyone's asses so they will give them the tight to screw over our lives. To me, Clinton and Bush, not to mention all the presidents before, are politicians, no more or less.

You say that the government sucks, but do you have an alternate proposal that will work better? And have you expressed your thoughts other than rambling on a messageboard? Like writing a letter to someone who might give a crap about it, or has the power to do something about it? Gotten into any debate with someone so you may enlighten that person? Just because you don't like something means you are right- you may be, but unless you do something about it, you are not better than the deceased on the voting ballots.

When the president's approval rate is below 50%, it's safe to say the majority is thinking the same as you; that Bush sucks. We know. Stop bitching about it and do something about it.

Clinton may not be the best president, but he wasn't as slow as Bush. JFK had a huge affair with Marilyn Monroe, well both him and Bobby Kennedy, but it was hushed up because of the different times. Still JFK remains to be one of the most popular presidents, when in reality he may have not done or served as much as Clinton did. And his foreign policy was better in that everyone was not laughing at United States or sending money to help out. Clinton didn't have to borrow money to support ongoing military campaigns, help hurricane victims and increase the budget deficit. That alone makes Clinton better than Bush.

Michael Moore is a bigot, but the movie was a success since people just wanted to see a movie where Bush was being ridiculed for two hours- Jay Leno made a career of ridiculing Clinton, and Jon Stewart's favorite toy is Bush. They are just better than Moore.

Cindy Sheehan has done more than you. She's doing a rally around the White House this Saturday with her supporters, getting more steam piling up for her campaign. Her demands are unrealistic, perhaps, but that's her demand. If you want to say something to her she'll be there in DC. Have a nice chat.

If you don't like it, move. There are other countries that may suck less than America. That or shut up. Unless you do, your post is just a rant, that is all.

[Bob]

If you don't like it, move. There are other countries that may suck less than America. That or shut up. Unless you do, your post is just a rant, that is all.

Nine, actually. You can drive to one of them

[Masa the Masta]

Nine, actually. You can drive to one of them


Mexico? :p

[NERD]

Nine, actually. You can drive to one of them

Care to elaborate which ones?

[chgu]

Nine, actually. You can drive to one of them
I'm working on going to school in Canada so I can use it as a way in. :D

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I've wrote a letter to my local Congressman, Michael Moore, and Mike Huckabee.

No responses from anyone, but I still did it.

Woo hoo go me I actually did something besides voting.

[Monkey]

number17, it sounds like you just hate politics to me.

I can't see why you think Clinton was so terrible either. You mention that the US has had a debt problem from the beginning of the 90's to today but neglect to mention that the country was in debt when Clinton came into power (from bush snr I believe), but was quite far into the black when Clinton left. It was Bush that screwed up your economy for and left you with one of the biggest debts in history.

Secondly Clinton may have had a mediocre foreign policy but at least it wasn't a fucking awful policy like the US has now. It seems to me that they are just trying to alienate almost every country on earth.


It's always the case when choosing politicians that you have to choose the best from a bad bunch. How Bush got re-elected I don't know...

[Pfalzer]

If you don't like it, move. There are other countries that may suck less than America. That or shut up. Unless you do, your post is just a rant, that is all.

And that is why america fails in foriegn realtions...utterly....

[setrict]

snip

My thoughts are pretty much the same as the original poster.... GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

[NERD]

And that is why america fails in foriegn realtions...utterly....

Ouch, got me there.

Well, America is never known for its hospitality. Whenever a new ethnic group moves in they become the butt of the jokes- it was the Irish, then the Italians, then the Mexicans, then what, the Asians? Indians? Arabs?

I'd like to defend myself by saying at least I didn't put Michael Bolton to represent America.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I can't see why you think Clinton was so terrible either. You mention that the US has had a debt problem from the beginning of the 90's to today but neglect to mention that the country was in debt when Clinton came into power (from bush snr I believe), but was quite far into the black when Clinton left. It was Bush that screwed up your economy for and left you with one of the biggest debts in history.

Incorrect. There was a huge national debt both before and after Clinton. Through no effort of his own (due mostly to the tech bubble), the economy boomed and he balanced the budget with a surplus. A surplus means that we aren't running a deficit -- not that we eliminated the national debt (not gonna happen!).

Secondly Clinton may have had a mediocre foreign policy but at least it wasn't a fucking awful policy like the US has now. It seems to me that they are just trying to alienate almost every country on earth.

Yes, because when Clinton rushes into Kosovo to stop bad men, it makes good foreign policy. When Bush rushes into Iraq to stop bad men, it makes bad foreign policy? When Clinton gives North Korea nuclear reactors that it fails to abide by agreements about, and refuses to do anything about them, it makes good foreign policy. When Bush goes into 6-way talks to try to fix the mistake, it's bad foreign policy?

I despise Bush. But Clinton wasn't standing on high ground on half the shit that people despise Bush for. I think that the OP made an excellent point that I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Monkey]

Incorrect. There was a huge national debt both before and after Clinton. Through no effort of his own (due mostly to the tech bubble), the economy boomed and he balanced the budget with a surplus. A surplus means that we aren't running a deficit -- not that we eliminated the national debt (not gonna happen!).



Yes, because when Clinton rushes into Kosovo to stop bad men, it makes good foreign policy. When Bush rushes into Iraq to stop bad men, it makes bad foreign policy? When Clinton gives North Korea nuclear reactors that it fails to abide by agreements about, and refuses to do anything about them, it makes good foreign policy. When Bush goes into 6-way talks to try to fix the mistake, it's bad foreign policy?

I despise Bush. But Clinton wasn't standing on high ground on half the shit that people despise Bush for. I think that the OP made an excellent point that I wholeheartedly agree with.



When did I mention Iraq? I was saying that Bush is alienating every country, some of it is over Iraq sure, but most of it is their attitude to the rest of the world. They just say fuck you, we'll do what we want and destroy the UN in the process. (I won't get into an argument about whether the UN was already useless and it just took a mild shove from the US to prove it)


Kosovo was an active situation. The genocide was happening right then and there. It was a UN intervention with the backing of most countries.

Iraq was a dormant situation. Nothing was happening except for the usual human rights abuses which happen in dozens upon dozens of countries across the globe. There was no UN backing, most nations disagreed with the war completely.


That is what I mean by alienation.


The economy, all I can say is that a surplus is better than a deficit right?
As for Clinton just being lucky, does that mean that Bush is just unlucky? That all the countries economics have nothing to do with the policies? It's just dumb luck? Hell no, there's good policies and there's bad policies. Don't ever attribute something as large as the economy of America just to blind luck.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I think the government went downhill when the Reagan administration hit. People might say that it started with Nixion, but I tend to think that was a fluctuation in the system.

When did it become okay to screw Americans over and elect the person for another term? The sad part is that no one even understands the going ons (even me) in our government that makes us a delusional nation.

When we do one thing it always comes back to bite us in the ass. Case in point:

When the Soviots invaded Afgahnistan for whatever reason they had in mind I dunno. We didn't look hard at the fact that Russia AND America was a hated nation. We just didn't want the Soviots to have oil fields. So you know what we do? WE SEND THEM WEAPONS!

Go America! Putting your trust in a nation that thinks we are the downfall of moral society and our taint on this Earth should be wiped is a good idea.

I love my country. I was born here and I have become accoustomed to America because it is my home. Telling me to move is ludacris just because I disagree with the government strongly. I can love the land but hate the owners.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Do presidential policies affect the economy? Of course.

Do they make a tech boom bubble in 3-4 years? No.

Clinton got lucky with the surplus, because there was an event unrelated to governemnt fiscal policies that boosted revenues for the federal government allowing him to turn a deficit into a surplus. Yes, granted he took that money and used it to pay off some debt or somesuch. And granted that Bush took the surplus and tossed it into a giant tax cut. Either one results in a balanced budget. The problem is that the tech bubble burst, and the economy took a dive on Bush's watch, though not because of his policies.

The effects may have been worse because of his policies and the lack of a cushion that the surplus provided, but whether or not our debt level is a problem or not is a discussion that I doubt either of us is really equipped to have. The Japanese debt, after all, is FAR higher than the US as a percentage of their GDP, and they haven't sunk into the ocean (yet).

As far as foreign policy, you've lost me.

"Bush has bad foreign policy because he invaded Iraq and the UN didn't want it" followed by "I don't want to discuss the relevance of the UN." So Bush is bad because he went against the UN, but you refuse to have a discussion of how relevant the UN is to international policy making? Sorry, ain't cutting it. I fail to see how a noble cause that gets Americans shot (like failing to stop a genocide, twice, in both Kosovo and Rwanda), and a non-noble cause that gets Americans shot (like deposing a leader for God knows what reason and failing to impose a reasonable regime) are any different.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how Democrats are good, and Republicans are bad some more.

[Roxie]

J
I also HATE Michael Moore. If it isn't his constant socialist ramblings about how he hates our country
:rolleyes: GAWD!!!

Michael Moore does NOT hate America. I don't know who feed that to you, but he does NOT hate America...If you watch with an open mind (it doesn't mean you have to agree with), you'll see he does NOT hate America.

He's said himself several times, he loves America. That he couldn't expect to do what he does in many other countries. He's just very critical and loud about it.

I don't know how I feel about Michael Moore. I think he reveals alot of truths, but other times he just goes too far.

I love Jon Stewart with an unwavering passion that will never die.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You're right. He does love America. He loves it so much that he is in favour of tossing out everything the Constitution stands for. He loves it so much that he wants the government run by the hoi polloi -- the group that the Founding Fathers were so intent on keeping as far as possible from the electoral process. He loves it so much that he wants the government to adopt socialist Mother-Government policies -- which of course link up entirely with the Founding Fathers concept of a right to property.

But of course, words speak louder than actions, so after spewing America-hating rhetoric, when he says he loves America, it makes it all okay.

He's a windbag. He's as bad as Rush Limbaugh. And that's bad.

[Kragar]

I think the government went downhill when the Reagan administration hit. People might say that it started with Nixion, but I tend to think that was a fluctuation in the system.

How old are you? Government has to go uphill before going downhill.

When did it become okay to screw Americans over and elect the person for another term? The sad part is that no one even understands the going ons (even me) in our government that makes us a delusional nation.

They're politicians. They live by screwing over Americans. Just getting pissed off doesn't make it any better, because you still have to deal with the situation created.

When we do one thing it always comes back to bite us in the ass. Case in point:

When the Soviots invaded Afgahnistan for whatever reason they had in mind I dunno. We didn't look hard at the fact that Russia AND America was a hated nation. We just didn't want the Soviots to have oil fields. So you know what we do? WE SEND THEM WEAPONS!

Go America! Putting your trust in a nation that thinks we are the downfall of moral society and our taint on this Earth should be wiped is a good idea.

Warm water port is more likely. And sending them weapons at the time wasn't a bad idea. It helped bring an end to the Soviet Union, after all. The problem was treating the Afghanis like red-headed step children after they won.

The government acted like the Soviet threat was the only problem in the world, and once it was solved everything would be perfect. Ooops.

It isn't enough to bitch about what the government has done wrong. It will always do wrong, even when it doesn't want to, because it's a bureaucracy. Look at New Orleans. A lot of these things happened for a reason, though, and you'd be better served by learning them.

[Varia]

The other day I went on a trip with my school's international club. We went on a charter bus and it was fairly full, at about 50 people. We had a two and ahalf hour drive ahead of us, so the coordinator decided that everybody wasgoing to come up and do an introduction of themselves. So people come up one by one, say a little something about themselves, pick the next person to come up, and go sit back down. Well, one guy, Japanese, he comes up, and he says his name and blahblah whatever. The he says "Do you know the American and (forgot) government? Well, I hate them, so fuck them all", and then went back to his seat.
________
ASCARI (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_Ascari)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Here, this pretty-much sums it up for me:

Bill O'Reilly vs. Michael Moore on The O'Reilly Factor (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html). It's ugly. Moore gets his ass handed to him because he refuses to directly say what he implies. It's the same way he can get away with his movies and not get slandered -- by implying a whole boatload without actually ever saying it.

See also Bowling for Truth (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com). It catalogues the deception in his films. Moore is an ass.

[Praetorian]

Pierrot, why are you talking about debt as a bad thing here but as a good thing in the 'superpowers' thread?

[erbiumfiber]

Yeah, Clinton got pretty lucky with the tech bubble and the budget. All of us working for start-ups (and even larger companies) paid extremely big bucks in capital gains taxes (I even paid some ordinary income taxes on options I cashed in early).

A lot of people paid A LOT of taxes. Which just goes to show how big the bubble was. It all seemed like a lot of crap to me (my own company had a P/E ratio in the 600's!!) so I invested the proceeds in things like muni bonds and real estate. But I digress...

Nowadays, people don't trust stock options and won't work for crap and hope the options will pay out big time.

The late 90's was one majorly fucked-up time in the business world...

The tech bubble...why I am working in Japan part 473.

Since I hate the US government as well, I enjoy NOT paying taxes to said government to finance crazy wars and hurricane damage that could have been prevented. Can't wait to see the bill that Rita racks up...

I have a chance to move back to the US and even though it pays more money, once I factor in the tax advantage here, I don't think my take-home will be any higher. Plus I'd be financing a regime I despise...I am seriously looking into Canadian citizenship and maybe renouncing my US citizenship. The US is a place I no longer recognize. However, the US government can keep taxing you for 10 years after you renounce your citizenship if they think you have done it for tax reasons...

Sorry for the ramble but I have taken the "leave it" part of "love it or leave it" and I used to be pretty patriotic...maybe if there's anything left of the country when Bush is out of office AND someone decent gets in...(I am kidding myself here). The whole thing just makes me sad...

[Invictus]

OP is absolutely right. The left sucks. The right sucks. Government sucks. We need statesmen, not politicians. Good points by Pierrot as well.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Debt isn't good, and I haven't argued that it was good. I've argued that it isn't the end of the world which people claim it is, and in this thread I state that I don't think either of us are in a position to debate the merits of debting and debtor nations. That's all.

[CNagy]

Debt isn't good or bad; it is required. We operate a debt-based world wide economy, and without it global economics would be hell. It is because of issues regarding debt that certain countries get favoured trading status or preferencial treatment; the size of the debt itself almost becomes irrelevant as we export high end technology for whatever low tech items we can't produce cheaply enough here-- no country is ever going to demand that another pay up in full.

That said, a surplus is a wonderful thing if handled correctly. A small token payment made to those countries who are owed the most, as a way of acknowledging our country's prosperity, is a good step, but a majority of it would have been better spent funding social programs rather than providing tax cuts.

On the topic of foreign policy, the UN exists in part nowadays to curb any sort of cavalier attitude in regards to war and military engagements regarding 1st world countries. It is bad foreign policy to essentially defy the international community, but in this case it was not that great of a policy in regards to domestic concerns, either. While approval for some sort of action was extremely high, post 9/11, by the time Iraq rolled around, most polls were showing a little less than a 50% backing for a military campaign in Iraq, and that number dropped to about 1/3 of the population when the issue of lacking UN consent was brought up.

Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh, but he is actually a Chinese bootleg version, which is why he is scruffier and Republicans hate him; they had to pay good money for their Rush.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I don't know what sucks worse.

The fact that we have a debt that keeps rising or the fact that China is starting to become richer than America...and communism is working for them.

We can't do anything to them because we get most of our crap from them.

[NERD]

I don't know what sucks worse.

The fact that we have a debt that keeps rising or the fact that China is starting to become richer than America...and communism is working for them.

We can't do anything to them because we get most of our crap from them.


Communism may still be functioning for China as of now, but even today they are becoming more capitalistic than anything, with new companies, developments, money flow, etc... China has a lot of internal problems going on, it's just that their government has a huge hand in everything. Heard about stuff like restricting access to google, MMOGs, blogs and stuff?

During the Reagan administration, Japan was thought to become the next super power, as it was in its peak of the Bubble economy. The reaction to Japan was quite similar to the reactions they have to China today- the difference is, if China's economy collapses like it did in Japan, it would be one hell of a mess. Clearly, if there's a way up, then there's the way down, and I think China is realizing the same thing now.

China is not the imminent problem for America at this point- it would be quite awhile before the areas affected by Katrina is back to its original state, as it was proven by many hurricanes to Florida over the last decade, not to mention the mess in Iraq/Afghanistan. It may not sound important right now, but billions have been put into those already, with a lot more to go.

[Monkey]

"Bush has bad foreign policy because he invaded Iraq and the UN didn't want it" followed by "I don't want to discuss the relevance of the UN." So Bush is bad because he went against the UN, but you refuse to have a discussion of how relevant the UN is to international policy making? Sorry, ain't cutting it. I fail to see how a noble cause that gets Americans shot (like failing to stop a genocide, twice, in both Kosovo and Rwanda), and a non-noble cause that gets Americans shot (like deposing a leader for God knows what reason and failing to impose a reasonable regime) are any different.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how Democrats are good, and Republicans are bad some more.


I merely was saying that the UN was irrelevant to my point. I was using them to mean the international community. In Kosovo it was the international community who went in and stopped the genocide. In Iraq, most countries were against it. Thus the US was alienating the rest of the world. A very simple point I thought...


PS: Please don't misquote me either. I didn't say that "I don't want to discuss the relevance of the UN", I said "I won't get into an argument about whether the UN was already useless and it just took a mild shove from the US to prove it". Whether the UN is still a force in modern politics is another discussion entirely.

If you want to start a new thread about the UN and discuss it there, then be my guest. I thought it would be derailing the current topic a bit however.

[Trump]

Eliminating the national debt would bring about a depression 5x worse than the 1920s, and that would only bring about war on the scale of the 40s. The national debt is necessary.

[setrict]

http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/
Some interesting charts regarding the national debt. They basically show that while it is increasing, the national debt per person has roughly kept pace with the GDP per capita. In other words, it's grown proportionally with our economy and population.

Below shows comparisons between the G-7 of overall debt ratios adjusted by population.


Original Source: The Economist 2003
Country...........Gov't Spending/GDP.........Budget Balance...............Public Debt/GDP
Canada.....................19.02%................. ..........0.70% surplus........................77.00%
France......................24.28%................ ..........4.10% deficit...........................69.10%
Germany..................19.70%................... ........4.00% deficit..........................63.90%
Italy..........................19.20%............. ..............2.30% deficit........................106.67%
Japan........................17.50%............... ............7.42% deficit.........................154.62%
UK.............................20.50%............. .............3.10% deficit...........................51.40%
USA...........................18.72%.............. .............3.46% deficit..........................62.43%
Mean.........................19.85%............... ............3.38% deficit..........................83.59%
Median.....................19.20%................. ..........3.46% deficit..........................69.10%

[p1c4z0]

I hate Micheal Moore too.

[Kustom]

When did it become okay to screw Americans over and elect the person for another term? The sad part is that no one even understands the going ons (even me) in our government that makes us a delusional nation.

When we do one thing it always comes back to bite us in the ass. Case in point:

When the Soviots invaded Afgahnistan for whatever reason they had in mind I dunno. We didn't look hard at the fact that Russia AND America was a hated nation. We just didn't want the Soviots to have oil fields. So you know what we do? WE SEND THEM WEAPONS!

Go America! Putting your trust in a nation that thinks we are the downfall of moral society and our taint on this Earth should be wiped is a good idea.


Holy shit! If that doesn't sound like Michael Moore I don't know what the hell does... You damn America-hating hippy!

Honestly I tend to forward every critic that involves "America-haters" to the trash can before I even consider it. What the fuck is wrong with America? Are you guys feeling so insecure in the US of A that you always have to feel loved and cuddled or you freak?

If somebody makes points you don't like and can prove them wrong, then call BS and do it. What's the point in throwing "love America/hate America" comments to each other's face? I wish you were sitting here with my foreign perspective and realize just how fucking retarded an attitude it is. If someone starts criticizing my country, I will think about what he says and agree or disagree but why on earth would I start whining "Boo, you hate me country, you big meany!".

So what, you can't be a socialist and love America? I used to think freedom of thought was granted in the US, maybe I should think twice. So Michael Moore is the antechrist but the conservative scum who spew their hatred in morning radio broadcasts and wish for America to become a Christian theocracy are somewhat decent citizens, God bless them patriot motherfuckers!

If somebody doesn't agree with you, then he must hate you: how fucked up is that? If somebody is an asshole, but he agrees with me, we're best friends, but if he is against me, I'll send letters to everyone I know to whine and rant!
Nice philosophy.

Now, I won't get into the Clinton/Bush argument, but here's a hint: Clinton bombed countries too, he pulled his own dirty tricks, but who do you think the world hates the most? Do you feel safer travelling now than during Clinton years, and if not is that because of 9/11 or of your dumbass president? If there's one thing Clinton did better, it probably has something to do with communication. But hey, how would I know, I'm French so I must hate America.

[CNagy]

I was completely feeling what you were saying, until you said that you are French. Now, I am no longer allowed to agree with you. A pity.

[Roxie]

You're right. He does love America. He loves it so much that he is in favour of tossing out everything the Constitution stands for.
What're you talking about?

He's praised the constitution several times and has questioned if those in power are truly sticking to it.

I'm not touting him as leader, but to say he hates America is a little extreme.

[DarkFire168]

What're you talking about?

He's praised the constitution several times and has questioned if those in power are truly sticking to it.

I'm not touting him as leader, but to say he hates America is a little extreme.

I'm not saying he hates the US (though the fat bastard is a lying sack of twisted shit and I hate him. If you're going to try and convince someone of something, don't twist and warp the facts to suit yourself, stick to the truth. If you can't convince someone of something with the truth, you shouldn't be trying to convince them of it at all.) but he does want to completely reem our Constitution. Look at his gun control policies. The founding fathers (all of them) believed in a citizens right to bear arms and protect themselves. But Moore doesn't want that, he wants thinks guns are the source of every problem in the country. Why? Because he's a psychotic liberal. Now don't get me wrong, those twisted old, "America should be a christian theocracy" fucks aren't any better, but he's still an asshole.

[Iseult]

I don't think Moore realizes how much he fundamentally disagrees with the principles on which the U.S. was founded. I'm sure he considers himself to be a patriot who sees some problems in the country he loves.

Of course, his solutions would change the country he purportedly loves into something none of us would recognize.

Moore is an extremist. Extremists are actually quite useful, in that they provide a bas-relief counterpoint to the mainstream, as long as no one takes them too seriously. (SEE ALSO: the Religious Right)

[kiev33]

Do presidential policies affect the economy? Of course.

and the economy took a dive on Bush's watch, though not because of his policies.

Actually, I am a firm believer in the psychology of the marketplace. I beleive that the markets rise and fall on public perception. The "tech bubble" was going stropng, until candidate Bush began saying that the economy wasn't doing as well as everyone said, trying to change the attitudes about Clinton's economic policies.

As soon as he began saying that and the national Republican propaganda machine began echoing it, all of a sudden, the economy wasn't doing so well, and then, while saying all this, new President Bush went ahead and passed tax cuts, while tlaking out the other side of his face about the economy.

This all pushed public perception even farther south. So now we have economic problems. Don't tell me that I am ignoring policies, etc, I know that. You guys have that covered. I am only discussing the perception problem, and I strongly think a president's job should include that of cheerleading. If people believe the economy is strong, they are willing to spend more money, then the economy grows.

Kevin

[kiev33]

I'm not saying he hates the US (though the fat bastard is a lying sack of twisted shit and I hate him. If you're going to try and convince someone of something, don't twist and warp the facts to suit yourself, stick to the truth. If you can't convince someone of something with the truth, you shouldn't be trying to convince them of it at all.) but he does want to completely reem our Constitution. Look at his gun control policies. The founding fathers (all of them) believed in a citizens right to bear arms and protect themselves. But Moore doesn't want that, he wants thinks guns are the source of every problem in the country. Why? Because he's a psychotic liberal. Now don't get me wrong, those twisted old, "America should be a christian theocracy" fucks aren't any better, but he's still an asshole.

Not saying I completely disagree with tis, but aas to the Constitution andf guns, my copy of the Constitution does not state that every person can have a gun, it seems to say that states can raise militias, but does not guarantee that every person can have a gun, if I am not mistaken.

HOWEVER, before you all jump down my throat, that is how the amendment has historically bene interpreted, and I am glad, because after Katrina and New Orleans, I have finally decided to buy that Colt AR15 I've wanted since I got out of the Army.

Kevin

[Pierrot le Fou]

What're you talking about?

He's praised the constitution several times and has questioned if those in power are truly sticking to it.

I'm not touting him as leader, but to say he hates America is a little extreme.
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

But Moore sure supports this -- yessirree! So much does he support this that he misrepresents so many things in Bowling for Columbine that one of the kids who got shot is pro gun-ownership (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/cast.htm), and feels used by Moore.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But of course he still argues for national bans on all sorts of weapons, argues for socialized healthcare, argues for poppa government to save his hometown of Flint, and otherwise is a big Federal Government Junkie. He ain't a lawyer, and I sincerely doubt that he has a concept of where the Feds get their power from (the ERA).

Ah, but of course, he loves the Constitution -- well, the parts of it that he agrees with anyway.

What a true American hero. Making loud-mouthed fat-asses the world over look better because they aren't him.

[DarkFire168]

Not saying I completely disagree with tis, but aas to the Constitution andf guns, my copy of the Constitution does not state that every person can have a gun, it seems to say that states can raise militias, but does not guarantee that every person can have a gun, if I am not mistaken.

HOWEVER, before you all jump down my throat, that is how the amendment has historically bene interpreted, and I am glad, because after Katrina and New Orleans, I have finally decided to buy that Colt AR15 I've wanted since I got out of the Army.

Kevin


The second Amendment on the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, gives all citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and if need be raise militia for the general defense of public property and rights.

Unless the history book I'm reading this out of is incorrect.

[NERD]

Somewhat relating to the national debt, it didn't make much sense for Bush to issue that much tax cuts. Why?

And wouldn't Greenspan have a big hand in the economy as well?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

What're you talking about?

He's praised the constitution several times and has questioned if those in power are truly sticking to it.

I'm not touting him as leader, but to say he hates America is a little extreme.

Few quotes from Mr. Moore himself:

"The dumbest Canadian is smarter than the smartest American."
-Moore on Canadian booktour

"The dumbest Brit is smarter than the smartest American."
-Moore on U.K. booktour.

"Fuck all small buisnessess-bring in the chains. Small buisnesses are run only by hick rednecks. Fuck all the small buisnesses. I hate them."

[Roxie]

Few quotes from Mr. Moore himself:

"The dumbest Canadian is smarter than the smartest American."
-Moore on Canadian booktour

"The dumbest Brit is smarter than the smartest American."
-Moore on U.K. booktour.

"Fuck all small buisnessess-bring in the chains. Small buisnesses are run only by hick rednecks. Fuck all the small buisnesses. I hate them."
I'd like to see the context and the source, sir.

Btw, I'm only going off what I know. One book and two movies.

[Monkey]

"The dumbest Brit is smarter than the smartest American."
-Moore on U.K. booktour.


Ouch, it's enough to make you really pity Moore. That he would say something like that at all. There are dumb people in every country, the difference is we ridicule our stupid people while America seems to praise them and put them on TV...

Personally I couldn't stand to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. I managed to watch the first 20 minutes or so, but you could tell from the very start that it was horribly skewed to demonstrate his point.

Personally that's what really gets to me, noone ever seems to tell the truth in politics nowadays. Sure I expect a certain amount of lying from them. Afterall that's pretty much the definition of politics. It seems to me though that we are getting absolutely no truth from our leaders anymore. I can't really comment on whether Bush kept any election promises (as I don't live in America), the only good example I heard of lying was about his tax cuts. I heard he promised so many billions of tax cuts (which he did deliver), but they didn't go to the people who needed them, he just cut the taxes for the rich. The Labour party in Britain is very similar, one of their election promises was to not raise taxes at all, however we are now paying some of the highest tax rates in history. They promise to improve transport, healthcare and education but in the end all you get are a few flashy, high publicity projects which end up doing absolutley nothing to improve the situation. They down and out lie to you whilst trying to distract you with media spin doctoring.


It's a wonder that anyone bothers voting anymore.

[Kustom]

Ah, but of course, he loves the Constitution -- well, the parts of it that he agrees with anyway.


Yeah, it's a pity so many people think like that... You know, like all those people who skip this:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

to make their points. America-haters, the lot of them.

But hey, wait a minute, probably the founding fathers didn't all feel very happy about negroes and women voting? Fucking liberals, they just keep betraying their homeland don't they? Hang 'em high!

I'll say this again, any argument that such and such "hates America" is pathetic, childish, insert-an-insulting-adjective-here... Even if you dig up a quote of someone saying "I hate America", what did you prove? I'd be surprised if somebody who really hates America couldn't make a couple of valid points against it.

Facts are what I care about. Is it or not facts that Michael Moore blamed Clinton for bombing other countries in "bowling for Columbine"? In that same movie, did he not say that Canada had tons of gun owners and was doing just fine? Wasn't his point that the violence in America arose from the "culture of fear" in the general media? I don't know what I smoked when I watched it, it seemed pretty clear to me at the time. Where's this vast clintonian conspiracy for gun-control?

Michael Moore did not invent the distorsion of facts, manichean simplification and name-calling American politics have been all about since the Clinton years. As much as I dislike those tactics, they have become part of a succesful strategy for politicians in the US, and if you ask me it was about time the Neocons got a taste of their own medecine. I would not even argue that Moore is a necessary evil, for in his time and place he is not an evil, but rather the norm... If you're a conservative and hate Michael Moore, then think about what your own side is doing; if you're a liberal, then you're just as good a strategist as Kerry was. If you don't understand that it's necessary to hit back at them with the same weapons, then you're bound for another 8 years of Republican rule: why should they stop playing dirty if it pays?

I agree that it's sad to have to rely on people like Michael Moore to get your points across, but I blame it on the current state of the US and its media. I'd rather see an independant filmmaker lying than a whitehouse spokesperson. Honestly, if America doesn't unscrew himself, soon the 90s (yes, the years of Clinton, Bush and Moore) will be remembered as the peak of its civilisation. When I was young, or when my parents were, people dreamt of living in America, the land of opportunity yada yada... Now If I take a quick look around, everyone I know is like: "Holy shit! I'm so glad I don't live in that God-forsaken place! Let's hope they stick to themselves and don't come cause trouble in my neighbourhood". I'm writing this in sadness: I lived in America, I like its people and its values, but when the entire world population and 2/3 of your own country is thinking you're on the wrong track, I honestly think you have more important things to worry about than bashing Michael Moore. But well, if that's how you get your kicks...

[Pfalzer]

I see everyone hates micheal moore but i have yet to see any factual reason other than basically " he sucks" and " america hater" "constitional eater" "blah crap blah" Only thing i saw in his film was cold hard evidence that every one is against basically becuase its against our gung ho retard president and cattle staff. And the movies that were put out against his movies omg. Im suprised if you didnt see FOX news and etc strolling under the scenes its a load of bull that they need to put out just to insure an easy and sucessful transition into his second term of service... It was all bullshit and america ate and america keeps on eating it because americans believe their government does whats in their best interest... bullshit.

Someone wrote hes against the constituition. Do u know what it is? If anyhting he is execising it to the fullest extent of his abilities! While america steadily trades in individual frights and freedoms for false security measures that they are even repelling as we speak. Notice i said they were only repelling the security measures they ar ehowever not repelling the tons of information that they can digest and take from you when say 5 or 6 years ago would have been illegal to even do.

Yes debt is needed but going into further and further debt with no regards to it however is not. I want to see how he fixes it or if he even tries to. It will most likely carry one into the next presidents term and i feel sorry for him. Bush is a bonafide idiot and i don't see how texas survived his governacy.

Notice Fox news is the firs tone to bash Moore not CNN or any others. Fox is first and foremost why? Becuase the US government is afraid of Moore. SO in order to distill anything Moore says they have to make you fear him. And thats why anyone and everyone heard bad talking america and reported to the respective authorities are brought in and questioned for tertorist activities. Americans that Moore are americans that can't stand to see what america really is. A delusion. A pool of disapointment mixed with blind luck. Her shout of liberty is as tarnished and old as the statue of liberty. 9/11 was allowed to happen and no one sees it. It was a power play move that turned out horribly wrong. And now we are trying to pick up its shambles. And in the wake of it. We showed many counties that wow america isnt so great now is it. Korea, China, even fuckign Venezuela. Russia's coming out to press saying that they have a new combat helicopter to rival the american comanche or whatever. I mena WTF is russian doing coming out saying rival and US in the same sentence. Soemthing is goign down very soon. IF world policies and relations doesnt go on ice very quickly a rash of shit is going to break out.

And if it happens b4 the Bushes term is up. And if the US military doesnt meet its qouto of recruits guess where bush will be sending us. Overseas and it wont be for any natural disasters....

Fuck America Americans and you will see it steadily change into something you want it to be...But what do i know im a monkey and former russian cosmonaut valdimir Banana...Cheerios

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm not conservative, and I'm not liberal in the American sense. I'm for right-wing economics, and as many political/social freedoms as possible. I agree with lowering taxes, strong self-defense, buggering whoever you want in your own home, and snorting coke if the mood strikes you. I'm for less government -- not more -- in our lives, including restrictions of both social activity and religion.

Michael Moore is for the parts of the Constitution he likes, just as the conservative counterparts of Moore are. Recent Democratic administrations and Congresses like to ignore the second and tenth amendments (pushing for more gun control and less state power). Recent Republican administrations like to ignore parts of the first, the fourth, and five through seven when it comes to 'terrorists' or 'enemy combatants.'

And that's all despicable. I think they all hate America. And yes, maybe that's stupid rhetoric, but from where I stand it's true. They are all pushing for their beliefs not because they think that they're good changes that need to be made for America, but to try to prevent the other side from getting anything done by making them undo other stuff first. And the whole time, more and more pork gets piled on to bills going through Congress.

That's disgusting, not representing what the American people actually want, and it's even more disgusting when they pass that off as 'patriotism' or 'compassion' or 'necessity' when it is truly anything but. When more words are spent discussing 'pro-life' versus 'anti-choice' and 'pro-choice' versus 'anti-life' than is spent discussing the actual merits of abortion policies, it shows me how little the politicians care about America, and how much they care about maintaining power at any cost.

The nature of American politics has changed drastically with the Lincoln and Roosevelt (FDR) administrations. Lincoln started the surge of federal power, levying an army against states that wanted to secede for no reason than the preservation of power and the Union. Perhaps it was necessary, but it created a precedent, a strong precedent. Roosevelt took the strong federal government and made it even stronger, turning the US into a welfare state. Again, perhaps it was necessary, but it created a precedent that has left us with government spending on pork to 'control unemployment' as well as a load of trade protections which don't benefit America, only certain interest groups therein.

And rather than the interest groups, also interested in power, actually conceding that by funding all the groups that have a political sway everyone suffers, fight to get their share of the government pork-pie increased. And that isn't a love of America either.

Then there are the pundits. People who rant about one of the two sides in America as if they're all wrong. That's where windbags like Moore and Limbaugh sit. They scream until their face is blue about the evils of 'liberals' or 'conservatives' without ever really addressing their arguments, favouring to simply present the actions of the other side in a negative light. These are the people who cheer when an opposing president is in the White House and the economy tanks, because they can get on TV and say, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

I would propose two really simple Constitutional amendments that will never get passed. One is that all current federal laws on the books (all 25,000 pages or whatever of them) are to be repealed. Then Congress can start working on making short simple laws to cover the necessities. Every 6 years thereafter, all laws are cancelled, and they have to go through it again.

I should not have to hire a lawyer to defend my actions in a court of law. I should be able to study the law, like a rational human, and support my actions in a court of law without needing a specialist in that type of crime to help me. Is that a silly request? Probably. But I also think that expecting people to live in fear of laws that they can never understand without becoming a lawyer is absolutely ridiculous. Do any of the Congressmen have a clue of what is actually legal or not without consulting a team of lawyers?

I want my country back. I want to be able to decide within my state what laws are necessary and which ones aren't, with federal laws controlling what they're supposed to -- infrastructure, transportation, and defense. Washington doesn't know what communities want, as any look at an electoral map will show you that the needs and desires of the 'red' and 'blue' states are entirely different. Stronger local government would be the best way to deal with it, wouldn't it?

The Founding Fathers, creating a country out of thirteen independent colonies with different needs and desires, understood the concepts that I'm talking about. Madison discussed so many of these issues and wrote about them. But we've forgotten those lessons and have fucked up what was a good thing with excessive judicial review, and federal controls. And nobody can stop it. That frustrates me.

People who scream at the top of their lungs, like Moore, about the evils of the other side while ignoring that their own beliefs are wrong for so many of the same reasons are frustrating. And they're ignoring what this country was built on. And while I will defend to the death their right to say these things, I will not condone what they're saying or pretend that it holds value. I will call it like I see it. And that is my prerogative.

[DarkFire168]

I see everyone hates micheal moore but i have yet to see any factual reason other than basically " he sucks" and " america hater" "constitional eater" "blah crap blah" Only thing i saw in his film was cold hard evidence that every one is against basically becuase its against our gung ho retard president and cattle staff. And the movies that were put out against his movies omg. Im suprised if you didnt see FOX news and etc strolling under the scenes its a load of bull that they need to put out just to insure an easy and sucessful transition into his second term of service... It was all bullshit and america ate and america keeps on eating it because americans believe their government does whats in their best interest... bullshit.


I'm pretty sure I pointed out that his distortion of the truth for his own ends was why I hated him. Oh, that and his hypocrisy, his utter, utter hypocrisy. What about his books where he basically says anyone who is white, and from a red state, is the source of all the worlds problems? He's an elitist who believes that everyone in middle class america that doesn't agree with him is a yokel that needs his intellectual and political superiority to direct them. He's a communist and an elitist. This is why I hate him. I hope now that it's perfectly clear, because I really don't know how to say it more simply or more clearly than I have.


Someone wrote hes against the constituition. Do u know what it is? If anyhting he is execising it to the fullest extent of his abilities! While america steadily trades in individual frights and freedoms for false security measures that they are even repelling as we speak. Notice i said they were only repelling the security measures they ar ehowever not repelling the tons of information that they can digest and take from you when say 5 or 6 years ago would have been illegal to even do.


He IS exercising the first amendment. But the fact of the matter is, he wants to gut it and rewrite it to fit what he wants. And then the next part of that is pretty jumbled up, please rewrite it so I can understand it better. who's repelling what false security measures?


Yes debt is needed but going into further and further debt with no regards to it however is not. I want to see how he fixes it or if he even tries to. It will most likely carry one into the next presidents term and i feel sorry for him. Bush is a bonafide idiot and i don't see how texas survived his governacy.


Well first, presidents don't dictate the economy (except in socialism). The tech bubble popped just at the end of Clintons second term, the World Trade center was destroyed, and the aftereffects of 9/11 are still being felt. Calling someone an idiot and then claiming it's all his fault without reason is inane and pointless. How is he stupid? Because he was fed incorrect information by MI5, Russian intelligence, the CIA and the FBI about WMD's in Iraq? That makes him dumb? No, no it does not. It means he was given incorrect information, that's all. Is he an idiot because the economy is in debt? No, and I just covered that so =P. Is he an idiot because we're at war and we haven't left Iraq yet? No, when troops go in, you can't just yank them out two minutes later. And pulling troops out of what is effectively a war zone just leaves a void for all those little factions who are vying for power as it is to come in and set up an even more oppressive regime than before.


Notice Fox news is the firs tone to bash Moore not CNN or any others. Fox is first and foremost why? Becuase the US government is afraid of Moore. SO in order to distill anything Moore says they have to make you fear him. And thats why anyone and everyone heard bad talking america and reported to the respective authorities are brought in and questioned for tertorist activities. Americans that Moore are americans that can't stand to see what america really is. A delusion. A pool of disapointment mixed with blind luck. Her shout of liberty is as tarnished and old as the statue of liberty. 9/11 was allowed to happen and no one sees it. It was a power play move that turned out horribly wrong. And now we are trying to pick up its shambles. And in the wake of it. We showed many counties that wow america isnt so great now is it. Korea, China, even fuckign Venezuela. Russia's coming out to press saying that they have a new combat helicopter to rival the american comanche or whatever. I mena WTF is russian doing coming out saying rival and US in the same sentence. Soemthing is goign down very soon. IF world policies and relations doesnt go on ice very quickly a rash of shit is going to break out.


CNN bashes Moore just as much as Fox does. Wolf Blitzer has called him and idiot before, I'm sure he'll do it again, Hannigan has done it too.


And if it happens b4 the Bushes term is up. And if the US military doesnt meet its qouto of recruits guess where bush will be sending us. Overseas and it wont be for any natural disasters....


What? Are you trying to say that he's going to draft us? Are you STUPID? First, he wouldn't draft us for anything less than we were attacked, and war was officially declared on us by another country. Second, if we are attacked/issued a declaration of war, then everyone in the country would be willing to go anyway.


Fuck America Americans and you will see it steadily change into something you want it to be...But what do i know im a monkey and former russian cosmonaut valdimir Banana...Cheerios

WTF? This doesn't even make sense. You were drunk when you wrote this entire post weren't you?

[Pfalzer]

wouldnt you like to know! ;)

[setrict]

Pierrot please run for president so I can vote for you.

[Roxie]

I want Kustom..

[Pierrot le Fou]

Pierrot please run for president so I can vote for you.
Or you could just move to New Hampshire for the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project) as I am seriously considering doing when I return to the US. Alternatively, you could move to Costa Rica if you speak English for the Movimiento Libertario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Libertario). Neither is a poor choice at any rate, at least no worse than wherever you are now most likely.

[DarkFire168]

John McCane is the only man I want to be our president in 2008.

Maybe then I can get that petition to have Jane Fonda shot passed into lawhood.

[Kustom]

I think one of the sad thing about the world now is there is no longer a "frontier", places where you could go and establish a new state with new rules and progress through trial and error. Take Africa, for instance, it's got the worst border design ever, and places like Congo are completely unliveable as states; yet even rethinking the repartition of states there is impossible. I a group of like-minded people, conservative, liberal, libertarian, communist or whatever wants to start their own little utopia, it's no longer possible on this planet. Sometimes I feel like running away to a "brave new world" style island would be the best thing, but whether we like it or not we are all stuck on our little planet and I think it's part of our burden to try and change things in our own countries, even if it's a lot more work, often frustrating. Things like terrorism or pollution no longer know any borders, and having our own piece of heaven on earth while ignoring the world around us isn't likely to be a working solution. Then again, maybe trying to change the world is also pointless, as all the people here in Japan keep reminding me, but I like to think I won't give up just yet.

[DarkFire168]

I think one of the sad thing about the world now is there is no longer a "frontier", places where you could go and establish a new state with new rules and progress through trial and error. Take Africa, for instance, it's got the worst border design ever, and places like Congo are completely unliveable as states; yet even rethinking the repartition of states there is impossible. I a group of like-minded people, conservative, liberal, libertarian, communist or whatever wants to start their own little utopia, it's no longer possible on this planet. Sometimes I feel like running away to a "brave new world" style island would be the best thing, but whether we like it or not we are all stuck on our little planet and I think it's part of our burden to try and change things in our own countries, even if it's a lot more work, often frustrating. Things like terrorism or pollution no longer know any borders, and having our own piece of heaven on earth while ignoring the world around us isn't likely to be a working solution. Then again, maybe trying to change the world is also pointless, as all the people here in Japan keep reminding me, but I like to think I won't give up just yet.


Space dude, space. I personally can't wait to live on a terraformed Mars.

[Mojinr]

Pierrot's entire rant was worth the few golden sentences in the beginning. This is definitely going in my Quote file.

"I'm not conservative, and I'm not liberal in the American sense. I'm for right-wing economics, and as many political/social freedoms as possible. I agree with lowering taxes, strong self-defense, buggering whoever you want in your own home, and snorting coke if the mood strikes you." - Pierrot le Fou

[Iseult]

John McCane is the only man I want to be our president in 2008.

Maybe then I can get that petition to have Jane Fonda shot passed into lawhood.


Except that McCain (note spelling) holds no grudge against Ms. Fonda. Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0418AZinDC18.html

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I by no means take sides in any political situation.

I strongly dislike Democrats and Rupublicans and hate it when those guys decide to work together.

This might be an extreamist rant, but we either need a person who can look at all the wrong things in our economy and government and say "What the hell were you guys doing the last 30 years? Jacking each other off!? Because it obviously looks like that with the poor job that has been laid out for the US at the moment." The Democrat and Republican parties have died and we are left with Liberal and Conservatives.

If you look around anymore could you ever see a Democrat or Republican be called a Democrat or Republican? No! In fact I wouldn't be shocked if they did away with the parties our came out with a new Conservative and Liberal parties.

This is what our country has come to. Where Democrats see a Republican and thing "Conservative redneck bastard." And a Republican sees a Democrat and thinks "left-wing liberal commie."

This is what our country is and it is up to SOMEONE in the Uniter States to say "This is SCREWED UP! LETS ALL DO SOMETHING!" The problem is no one does anything other than saying "I voted".

Is it me or does voting hardly seem worth it anymore?

[DarkFire168]

Except that McCain (note spelling) holds no grudge against Ms. Fonda. Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0418AZinDC18.html


Blah, I always misspell his name. Sorry.

I think that's the one thing he's lying about though, I mean, wouldn't YOU hold a grudge if someone tortured you?

[DarkFire168]

I by no means take sides in any political situation.

I strongly dislike Democrats and Rupublicans and hate it when those guys decide to work together.

This might be an extreamist rant, but we either need a person who can look at all the wrong things in our economy and government and say "What the hell were you guys doing the last 30 years? Jacking each other off!? Because it obviously looks like that with the poor job that has been laid out for the US at the moment." The Democrat and Republican parties have died and we are left with Liberal and Conservatives.

If you look around anymore could you ever see a Democrat or Republican be called a Democrat or Republican? No! In fact I wouldn't be shocked if they did away with the parties our came out with a new Conservative and Liberal parties.

This is what our country has come to. Where Democrats see a Republican and thing "Conservative redneck bastard." And a Republican sees a Democrat and thinks "left-wing liberal commie."

This is what our country is and it is up to SOMEONE in the Uniter States to say "This is SCREWED UP! LETS ALL DO SOMETHING!" The problem is no one does anything other than saying "I voted".

Is it me or does voting hardly seem worth it anymore?


First, you hate it that no one is trying to do anything, but when Dem's and Rep's try and work together you hate that too? Doesn't that seem a little contradictory?

Second, there are men and women in the middle ground too. McCain is in the middle almost exactly, his voting percentage is like 54% Con, 42% Lib, and 4% other or something like that.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I think one of the sad thing about the world now is there is no longer a "frontier", places where you could go and establish a new state with new rules and progress through trial and error. Take Africa, for instance, it's got the worst border design ever, and places like Congo are completely unliveable as states; yet even rethinking the repartition of states there is impossible. I a group of like-minded people, conservative, liberal, libertarian, communist or whatever wants to start their own little utopia, it's no longer possible on this planet. Sometimes I feel like running away to a "brave new world" style island would be the best thing, but whether we like it or not we are all stuck on our little planet and I think it's part of our burden to try and change things in our own countries, even if it's a lot more work, often frustrating. Things like terrorism or pollution no longer know any borders, and having our own piece of heaven on earth while ignoring the world around us isn't likely to be a working solution. Then again, maybe trying to change the world is also pointless, as all the people here in Japan keep reminding me, but I like to think I won't give up just yet.
That's exactly how I feel Kustom. There's no way for us to pave our own way, and there is no place on earth that's truly free and established, so we have to compromise. And that blows in so many ways for people on the extremes of political viewpoints in today's moderate boring democracies.

[Roxie]

i've though`t about that...

the last free range is the internet.

[setrict]

or whatever wants to start their own little utopia, it's no longer possible on this planet.

All the more reason to be a pirate... Yarrr! No seriously, I wonder if in a few years it might be possible from a technology standpoint to start a man-made island out in international waters somewhere. Something far beyond that joke of a country on a retired oil platform that offers web hosting.

The economic models would have to be drastically different (probably heavily tourism based, IP, or even research), but with enough initial capital maybe there is a way to start from scratch. As usual, I'm probably dreaming impractical dreams :o

[Kos]

All the more reason to be a pirate... Yarrr! No seriously, I wonder if in a few years it might be possible from a technology standpoint to start a man-made island out in international waters somewhere. Something far beyond that joke of a country on a retired oil platform that offers web hosting.

The economic models would have to be drastically different (probably heavily tourism based, IP, or even research), but with enough initial capital maybe there is a way to start from scratch. As usual, I'm probably dreaming impractical dreams :o

See the Wikipedia entry on Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand)

One of the big problems with this idea, or even that of a data haven (cf. Cryptonomicon) is connectivity - the notion that there has to be another endpoint. :)

[DarkFire168]

you might be on to something.... though there are problems with this, check it out:

Ballast tanks that are hooked to computers specifically designed to measure the current weight of the "nation" that would increase the ballast so that the nation is always X percent positively bouyant.

Hydroponics gardens where our food would be grown.

Salt water intake valves that would bring in ocean water, purify it, and extract the salt, thus giving us both fresh water and salt.

We could act as an international trade station, with no tariffs or other trade barriers in place we'd be a great nation to act as a middleman for business' that want to trade between countries and find that international tariffs are to restrictive.

Hell who says it has to be ON the water? What if we built a city that thrived underneath the waves?

Those same ocean water intake valves could be duplicated, only this time, we have a second set that does an oxygen extract on the valves. The hydrogen extraced would go to the hydrogen powered nuclear energy facility powering the city. Hydroponics would be used to grow food, as well as imported food stuffs, thus feeding us. Tourism would be a big draw (Come see the sea as it was meant to be!), thus fueling our economy...

thoughts anyone?

[Kaji]

I must say this much, I never thought Pierrot and I would agree on so many points politically. I've been extolling the 10th amendment for quite some time now, and have exactly the same complaints about Lincoln and FDR. It wasn't called the War of Northern Aggression for nothing, after all...

[Pierrot le Fou]

I don't know exactly how to take that Kaji...

I will settle for being proud that I surprised you with my brilliant political theory, and that you are honoured to be on the site of good, justice, and the PLF way.

[Kaji]

What it really boils down to is that nobody can better decide what the city needs than the city, same goes for the state, hence why the 10th went on the books in the first place. When you're so far removed from a problem and can only pass laws on a broad scale, you inevitably come up with solutions that can't help all who are involved.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Which is the whole point of having a split federal/local system, that was forgotten with judicial review and the advent of the 14th amendment. Justifying intrusion into state rights and the tenth amendment by piping it through the 14th is absolutely despicable to me. The tenth amendment has become meaningless because of it, without ever having it stricken from the books...

[Marblehead]

That's exactly how I feel Kustom. There's no way for us to pave our own way, and there is no place on earth that's truly free and established, so we have to compromise. And that blows in so many ways for people on the extremes of political viewpoints in today's moderate boring democracies.

You know I'd have to disagree. You could carve your own city-state if you wanted to do so. It's just that the cost and the stakes are a lot bigger than they were 500 years ago. Someone on another thread pointed out the Principality of Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand) earlier as a very good case in point.
It really comes down to how much are you really willing to risk. If I and others involved feel it's worth our collective lives we might be able to succeed, or we might all die trying.
Our complaints about democracy are not greater than the cost of forming our own society.

[Kustom]

Anything that requires large amounts of capital is doomed from the start, because the lender will always expect a return, unless he's a philanthropist but then he'd probably want to be made head of state... It will be fine if you just want to build another fiscal paradise like the Caiman island, but I don't see banks funding an anarchist state any time soon... We need a place where you can just travel to, put your luggage down, and start building. The whole concept of borders and nationalities is fucked up IMO, our goal should be to let people live where and how they choose. One interesting world would be a world with a state per regime: one dictatorship, one libertarian, one socialist, some theocracies, etc. The key for it to work would be for people to be allowed to travel freely between those countries and choose what works for them. The size of each country should be proportionnal to the population. You would have to think about ways to prevent the totalitarian regimes to go to war with others, obviously, but since this vision is never gonna happen I won't sweat it. ;)

[DarkFire168]

I must say this much, I never thought Pierrot and I would agree on so many points politically. I've been extolling the 10th amendment for quite some time now, and have exactly the same complaints about Lincoln and FDR. It wasn't called the War of Northern Aggression for nothing, after all...

Unless I'm misreading this text book, Jefferson Davis ordered the Southern Confederate troops to attack Ft. I'd put it in quotes, but I'm lazy as hell.

How did the Civil War begin?

1. In February of 1861 represenatives from South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana formed the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis President and began occupying federal builidings, postoffices, forts and other federal government property.

2. When Lincoln took office in March he knew he had to take action. By May another four states had seceded and another four after that were ready to secede.

3. In April Lincoln received word from the commander of Fort Sumter in Charlestown South Carolina that he could not hold the fort for more than six weeks without supplies and fresh troops. Not wanting to shed first blood he only sent the supplies. Soon thereafter Confederate forces opened fire on the fort while the Union fleet stood and watched.




See? SEEEEEE?!?!?! ^^^^^^^ First shot = Fired by confederates, the North didn't take any aggresive actions at all. Lincoln was legally and fairly elected and the South got pissy. It was the forerunner to the 2000 election, cept it ended in war, and Florida wasn't filled with retarded old people and hanging chads weren't around. So it was called the War of Northern Aggression for no reason. Though I must add that different areas view it differently.

[Roxie]

Yeah....I could never sympathize with the south and the civil war.

I mean war is horror for anyone, but the whole "Northern Aggression" thing? pftt.

The south enslaved my ancestors and I have the tax records to prove it. You gets no love.

[Pfalzer]

Yeah even if the North didnt want to save the slaves initially it was charted later in the war and i am all the happier they won and continued it.

[setrict]

One interesting world would be a world with a state per regime: one dictatorship, one libertarian, one socialist, some theocracies, etc.
That would be awesome. One of the reasons I hate the idea of big goverment, is that we haven't come close to finding the optimal system yet. The more goverment form solidifies, the less likely we are to improve in my opinion. It's kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket, we'd all be better of to cooperatively diversify.

I've been thinking for sometime about starting a website called "peaceful revolutions". The premise on which it would be based is that Goverment development will stagnate due to the necessary restraints on violent revolution. Military force of arms, nuclear, biological, and even conventional are so devestating that revolution by arms just won't be worth the collateral damage. The problem is that revolutions are often necessary to improve, so there needs to be a mechanism for a peaceful revolution.

I'd like to make a place were anyone who is interested can get together and contribute to create various computer models for goverment simulation. Kind of like a combination of a Wiki and virtual legos. Maybe a little simulatated competion to make it fun. The hope being that with enough contributors providing 'revolutionary' ideas the project could in time produce one or more models that are great improvements over current systems. I figure at the best, they could be peacefully adopted and at worst portions could influence existing goverments for the best. Well, there is always the other worst of being a complete flop :D

[Life25Karma]

I don't like the government as much as the next person, and I really can't say that I am against Michael Moore, but nor am I for him. Thing is, before you say that someone is spreading propaganda, do you have any means of proof?

Before you slander that mother who lost her child, did you loose a child? No matter what the vowel, oath, etc. Losing a person dear to you is painful. Just because this woman's son signed his life away, doesn't mean she's not allowed to feel sadness. And:

Yeah Bush dug a hole, and now he has to lie in it, but is that really worth the lives of those who give them willing? You ever met someone who came back from Iraq? My friend watched people he know loose limbs, eyes, etc all for a war which half of them didn't even understand the "cause". Bush doesn't visit these guys, and some fucked up "thank you" on live television won't give these people back their normal life. Yeah you can say "Well they knew that they would be giving their all to this country," but how fucked up is it when you start a war, and don't even have the means, knowledge or even a decent plan to see it through? That woman has every right to miss her son. She didn't take his honor. Shit this isn't some fucking war movie. Its real life.

Establish a government, over where? PLEASE. These people have been fighting since day fucking 1, and some dumb ass isn't going to stop generations of fighting.

Yeah, hating Bush I could see, but unless we're going to do something about it, the man is allowed to show his ass. What trips me the most is half the people that complain? Never do shit. Just live it up and wait for the end of the world like everyone else. :D

[Kustom]

Just live it up and wait for the end of the world like everyone else. :D

Hey! That's MY philosophy! Give it back.

[DarkFire168]

I don't like the government as much as the next person, and I really can't say that I am against Michael Moore, but nor am I for him. Thing is, before you say that someone is spreading propaganda, do you have any means of proof?

Before you slander that mother who lost her child, did you loose a child? No matter what the vowel, oath, etc. Losing a person dear to you is painful. Just because this woman's son signed his life away, doesn't mean she's not allowed to feel sadness. And:

Yeah Bush dug a hole, and now he has to lie in it, but is that really worth the lives of those who give them willing? You ever met someone who came back from Iraq? My friend watched people he know loose limbs, eyes, etc all for a war which half of them didn't even understand the "cause". Bush doesn't visit these guys, and some fucked up "thank you" on live television won't give these people back their normal life. Yeah you can say "Well they knew that they would be giving their all to this country," but how fucked up is it when you start a war, and don't even have the means, knowledge or even a decent plan to see it through? That woman has every right to miss her son. She didn't take his honor. Shit this isn't some fucking war movie. Its real life.


Well propaganda as defined by Wikipedia is

The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions actively, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something. For example, propaganda might be used to garner either support or disapproval of a certain position, rather than to simply present the position. What separates propaganda from "normal" communication is in the subtle, often insidious, ways that the message attempts to shape opinion. For example, propaganda is often presented in a way that attempts to deliberately evoke a strong emotion, especially by suggesting illogical (or non-intuitive) relationships between concepts.

An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, more obvious a propaganda method than utilized by some other less overt and perhaps even more insidious forms. For instance, propaganda may be transmitted implicitly. Propaganda can be transmitted as the presupposition or presuppositions within an ostensibly fair and balanced debate or argument. This can be done to great effect in conjunction with a broadcast news format. Here is an example of a hypothetical situation in which the opposing view points are supposedly represented: the hawk (see: hawkish) says, "we must stay the course", and the dove says, "The war is a disaster and a failure", to which the hawk responds, "In war things seldom go smoothly and we must not let setbacks affect our determination", the dove retorts, "setbacks are setbacks, but, failures are failures." As one can see, the actual validity of the war is not discussed and is never in contention. Brief, succinct, and reductive arguments like these are often referred to as sound bites. In giving the appearance of representing opposing positions and view points, a debate (of what is really aspects of the actual, genuine, argument worthy issue) in which the debaters argue from the same basic assumptions, implicitly inculcates the presupposition(s) as sacrosanct truth, thus, establishing it as an accepted fact about the given issue.

The method of propaganda is essential to the word's meaning as well. A message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda. In fact, the message in modern propaganda is often not blatantly untrue. But even if the message conveys only "true" information, it will generally contain partisan bias and fail to present a complete and balanced consideration of the issue. Another common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). For example, a propagandist may seek to influence opinion by attempting to get a message heard in as many places as possible, and as often as possible. The intention of this approach is to a) reinforce an idea through repetition, and b) exclude or "drown out" any alternative ideas.

In English, the word "propaganda" now carries strong negative (as well as political) connotations, although it has not always done so. It was formerly common for political organisations to refer to their own material as propaganda. Other languages do not necessarily regard the term as derogatory and hence usage may lead to misunderstanding in communications with non-native English speakers. For example, in Brazil and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word "propaganda" usually means the most common manipulation of information—"advertising".

Propaganda shares many techniques with advertising. In fact, advertising can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product; however, the word "propaganda" more typically refers to political or nationalist uses, or promotion of a set of ideas. Propaganda also has much in common with public information campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage certain forms of behavior (such as wearing seat belts, not smoking, not littering, or so forth). Again, the emphasis is more political in propaganda. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV, and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium.

Propaganda, in a narrower use of the term, connotates deliberately false or misleading information that supports or furthers a political cause or the interests of those in power.

The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda.

More in line with the religious roots of the term, it is also used widely in the debates about new religious movements (NRMs), both by people who defend them and by people who oppose them. The latter pejoratively call these NRMs cults. Anti-cult activists and countercult activists accuse the leaders of what they consider cults of using propaganda extensively to recruit followers and keep them. Some social scientists, such as the late Jeffrey Hadden, and CESNUR affiliated scholars accuse ex-members of "cults" who became vocal critics and the anti-cult movement of making these unusual religious movements look bad without sufficient reasons. [1], [2]

....There's alot (and I mean an excrutiatingly lot) more. but here's the point, propaganda is twisting or ommitting facts for your own personal agenda. Michael Moore spreads propaganda.

How is it slander to have the opinion that what she's doing is disrespectful to the sacrifice her son made?

And I've met people who went to Iraq, my sisters boyfriend just came back from his tour of duty in Iraq.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Her son volunteered for the military. He volunteered to re-up for a second tour. He volunteered for the mission in which he was killed.

And it is disrespectful, and it is propaganda. Her son wasn't some poor kid with no other choice who got into something he didn't understand and was magically sent to Iraq without a chance to realize what was happening. He knew the risks, and he made the choice to re-up, to volunteer for a dangerous mission, and accept those risks.

This is not Bush's fault.

[DarkFire168]

Pierrot agrees with me, therefore I am right!

*Does a jig*

[Kaji]

See? SEEEEEE?!?!?! ^^^^^^^ First shot = Fired by confederates, the North didn't take any aggresive actions at all. Lincoln was legally and fairly elected and the South got pissy. It was the forerunner to the 2000 election, cept it ended in war, and Florida wasn't filled with retarded old people and hanging chads weren't around. So it was called the War of Northern Aggression for no reason. Though I must add that different areas view it differently.

That's like pointing to the middle east and going "See? SEEEEEE?!?!?! ^^^^^^^ First shot = Fired by israelis, the Muslims didn't take any aggresive actions at all." Read up on the definition of "aggrivated assault" sometime.

[Kustom]

That's bull. I don't know why this guy enlisted, but he most likely didn't plan on getting killed. When a soldier dies in war, it's normal and it happens but it's also his superiors' responsibility, including the commander in chief and you can't wave that this easily from their shoulders. Responsible doesn't mean guilty, responsible does mean you're expected to loose some sleep and try to sympathize over the trauma some families suffer.

That said, I don't specifically agree with what this woman is doing and it might just be an act of public relation (the PC name for propaganda), but I'd be damned if you know anything about what she's going through and have a right to insult her by calling her disrespectful to her own son. There's gotta be a limit to the BS people can spread on account of their conspiracy theories; you are being disrespectful to this soldier's sacrifice by insulting his family and ignoring their suffering because of your political opinion. There's no doubt in my mind that if that soldier was alive now and read this, he'd kick your ass much sooner than he'd blame his mother.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Was he 18? Yes.

Did he volunteer for the military? Yes.

Did he volunteer to re-up? Yes.

Did he volunteer for the mission? Yes.

Did he know the potential risk? Yes.

Does his mother have the right to say that he made the wrong decision? That he fucked up? That he, as an adult, made the wrong decision? That this was some horrible mistake? That he walked into something unprepared? That he was the poor victim of random violence? That he made a choice he wasn't prepared to make?

Of course not.

And that's why she's disrespecting him. She may as well be saying that he married the wrong woman, or is doing nothing with his life, because she's blaming Bush for a decision that he made, rather than blaming his son for the choice he made. Nobody should blame him, or the choice he made, but she is. Just because she's the mother doesn't give her that right. And that's where I draw the line.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

If the her son was drafted I would be singing a different tune.

The fact is that no one was drafted and everyone signed up for the military who is over there.

My guess was that he re-signed up to help his troop. I met a guy who shattered his leg and could never fight again, but the only thing he wanted to do was get back out there and help his troop members.

He was an adult and made his own choice and his mother should of repected that instead of protest it. What she is basically doing is protesting her son's great service in the army and not Bush.

I think is idiotically insane for these people to protest for "PULL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ NOW!"

Why? So we can leave it to be worse off than it is? I bet people will blame Bush for that if he listens to people and pulls them out. Of course he wont.

In fact that makes me a bit mad. I don't like Bush, but I think its a little inane to blame him for everything there possibly is to blame him for. The presidents office has been nothing more then downgraded to a blame office. If something screws up somewhere it's his fault. This is for all presidents of course and not him.

[Kustom]

Does his mother have the right to say that he made the wrong decision? That he fucked up? That he, as an adult, made the wrong decision? That this was some horrible mistake? That he walked into something unprepared? That he was the poor victim of random violence? That he made a choice he wasn't prepared to make?

Of course not.

Once again, I shall refer you to the first of the amendments you hold so dear. Of course she has the right to say it.

[Kustom]

I think is idiotically insane for these people to protest for "PULL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ NOW!"



Hey, I'm not disputing that. You can argue all you want about how it's irrational and unpractical. But why feel the need to talk about "dragging a soldier's honor in the dirt" or nonsense like this? This is hitting below the belt and nothing but propaganda. Once again, talk about loving the homeland, being brave or a coward, supporting the troops or not, is pure manipulation and has nothing to do in an objective debate. We would all be better off if people left such petty insults out. How is she supposed to defend herself against your claim, anyway? No answer she could give would satisfy you, you already ruled her out as immoral, disrespectful, whatever.

[KKF]

Well put Kustom. I'd like to add something else that I think you glossed over a little to fast. Yes, this guy enlisted. But when he enlisted he trusted that the President wouldn't put his life on the line for the wrong reasons. He put his trust in the President to take into regard the lives of the men and women that serve before he started a war. To some people they feel the war was justified. To the mother and more and more each day its the opposite. Thats why you see a lot of people protesting this war. We went in for the wrong reasons, to fast, and a plethora of other mistakes. So thats why a lot of us who have family and friends in Iraq want them out. Really not that hard to understand.

[Kaji]

Well put Kustom. I'd like to add something else that I think you glossed over a little to fast. Yes, this guy enlisted. But when he enlisted he trusted that the President wouldn't put his life on the line for the wrong reasons. He put his trust in the President to take into regard the lives of the men and women that serve before he started a war. To some people they feel the war was justified. To the mother and more and more each day its the opposite. Thats why you see a lot of people protesting this war. We went in for the wrong reasons, to fast, and a plethora of other mistakes. So thats why a lot of us who have family and friends in Iraq want them out. Really not that hard to understand.

What part of the fact that he re-enlisted and vollunteered for the mission shows that he disagreed with it? If he was against the war so badly, he didn't have to re-enlist, and even if he felt called to re-enlist purely to be with his comrades again, he still had a choice when it came to the mission.

[Pfalzer]

There is no honor in what we did and what we are doing in iraq. It wa spointless besides draggign hussein out we did what? For one we created a whole new level of urbanized warfare. More people have died after this "war" was declared over. Bush and his cabinent is bullshit. Yeah i know alot of people who volunterred also. Most of them want to come home... but they cant not unless their 4 years are up or they are wounded. Anyone wanting to stay there is disillusioned and should be sectioned eighted quickly. Civilians cant possibly know what soldiers are thinking. Notice how they stopped interviewing soldiers especially when they started talking about wanting to go home and not knowing why they are their. Thats a morale buster. It shouldnt be because they should have a reason to eb over there. And they don't , US government knows we don't, US military knows we don't. Hell even the marines know we don't. This "war" is farce. Bush's presidency is farce. You can't call evidence propaganda. YOu can call the bullshit movie shoved off to counter micheal moore's movie propaganda why... watch it again. If you still can't see it you prolly belong in Iraq. You will be of great help putting up another puppet ...i mean democratic nation...

[Kaji]

It's not like there haven't been peacekeeping forces deployed for years after a war has ended before. Is World War II still running because we have troops stationed in Japan? How about Korea? Or Germany, for that matter. It's not like wars just suddenly end when one side says "Ok, job's done."

[Star Market]

Pfalzer,

I recommend you go here and read this guy from beginning to end (start with his article "Showdown in Baquba"):

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

To give you some background on him, Michael Yon was ex-Army special forces (don't remember if he was Delta Force or Airborne Ranger in the interview I listened to on the radio). He was watching events in Iraq unfold on TV like everyone else, and it didn't sit well with him. He wanted to see for himself what was going on. What did he do? He called some Army buddies, hooked up with an Army unit and flew himself out to Iraq as an independent journalist. He pays for everything out of his own pocket (unless you'd like to make a donation) and is attached to no news organization nor the Army (except the unit he is imbedded with). Thus, there's no pressure for him to spin in either direction. He tells the story of Deuce Four (the unit he's imbedded with) as he sees it. It'll make you rethink whether or not "There is no honor in what we did and what we are doing in Iraq."

[DarkFire168]

Kustom, yes she does have the right to say what she's saying, but it's still disrespectful. It isn't propaganda to hold the belief that questioning someones decisions is disrespectufl. He was an adult, he made an informed choice, he wasn't lied to and told that he was going over there to do something and then did something completely different. He was misinformed, as was the President at the time, but he did what he thought was right, and then he came home. At that point he decided that he wanted to reenlist and he did. He wasn't even being misinformed at that point as all the facts had come out by then. To say that he was an idiot on national television is disrespectufl. If I went on CNN and said that Ryan Sheehan "Was a stupid, stupid man. He was incompetent and incapable of making the decisions he made, and it's the Presidents fault." I would be insulting his memory wouldn't I? Well his mother is basically doing the same thing. Yes, she has every right to grieve and feel bad, and yes, we can't know exactly what she's going through, but that doesn't make it any less objective to say she's dishonoring his memory. Wouldn't it be an insult to the memory of Pat Tillman for his mother to get into the media and say he didn't know what he was doing, he was lied to, etc. etc. he couldn't make this decision, it was the wrong decision, etc. etc.? It would.

KKF, so now every time someone dies it's the Presidents fault? We have troops stationed in Japan, if there's a riot and a soldier gets killed is that his fault too? Your statement doesn't make sense. If a president took into account the lives of every individual in our fighting forces, and responsibility for their lives, then he would never be able to do his job. People die. Get over it and quit blaming someone else. If Sheehan had been drafted, that would be one thing, but he volunteered (for the fracking mission no less).

[Pierrot le Fou]

Pardon me Kustom, when I say 'have the right' I don't mean in the first amendment sense, I mean in the 'stating accurate facts' sense. As in 'being in the right' more than 'having a Constitutional right' which I didn't clarify and mis-stated.

She is the sole spokesperson for her son right now, and rather than respecting his choices as an adult, she's calling him an idiot on national TV to evoke sympathy in his name for something he would have opposed. He volunteered willingly. As an adult. And she is calling him an idiot for that and arguing against what he was fighting for. That is disrespectful to the umpteenth degree, and is incredibly disrespectful of her son. She has the right to say it, but everyone else has the right -- and should be saying -- that she shouldn't be pissing on the grave of her dead son like this.

Is that really too much to ask?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I find it funny that Sheehan and the protestors who were dumb enough to follow her are getting zero news coverage.

The same thing happened to Sheehan when Katrina hit as well.

If that isn't enough she and the protestors are complaining that there isn't any news coverage in washington...

You have to be freaking kidding me. Hurrican Rita hits the gulf coast and you just want all the cameras to focus on what you are doing. Not that it makes any difference because Bush and the government could give less of a crap about your meaningless protest because they have more important things on their minds. It also doesn't make a difference because Bush isn't in Washington and Chaney is having surgery.

So who the hell are you protesting to?

They are complaining about no news coverage, but that seems selfish. To me it sounds like they don't care about the lives in the gulf coast. "OH BUSH SUCKS!" and "My poor baby boy..."

Some people need to grow up and think logically and rationally instead of just trying to get what you want.

[Kustom]

Look, you are criticizing her as if she was sueing Bush for money because of her son's death. That would be disrespectful of his choices. She's not saying she should compensated for her son's death, she just want to end the war before other American mothers suffer her fate. If your son dies in an accident with his sports car, because he chose to buy it, are you disrespecting him by warning others about the dangers of sports car ?

How is questionning the rationale for a war disrespectful to the men who fight it? How is wondering when we will pull them out to safety disregarding their efforts? Pulling them out too soon is certainly not a good thing for Irak, and maybe in the long run, to America, but I can certainly see why the particular lobby of American mothers would see it as better for them. And there are plenty of reasons why this guy could have decided to go to Irak, other than loyalty to the President's great leadership (err). Maybe he didn't want to let his comrades down, he wanted to serve his country, he needed the money, you name it. He's not any less of a hero because he fought a right or wrong war.

Plenty of soldiers who re-enlisted do disaprove of Bush's conduct of the war and so do many mothers, why not say it loud? Criticizing Bush has nothing to do with disrespecting them. It's like saying that criticizing Bush's policy on social security is disrespectful to the men and women who work in the SSA...

[Edit] Pierrot, please dig up the quote where she calls her son an idiot. :confused: I have a hard time believing this...

[Pierrot le Fou]

But that's disingenuous!

If her son bought a sports car, and then drove 120 mph drunk down the road, and she blamed it on the sports car, then we'd have an equivalent comparison of sorts (though I don't believe that driving drunk is equivalent to volunteering for the military, but for the sake of your metaphor...). Neither Bush nor the military is responsible for her death. He made the choice to put himself in harm's way entirely aware of the consequences that come with that choice.

Blaming the war/Bush is equivalent to blaming the sports car for the drunk driving death. It was merely a means to the end of death -- not the cause of that death.

Questioning the war is perfectly fine. I greatly dislike the war, and participated in plenty o' protests before coming to Japan. But I didn't put my son's choices on the table, right after his death, as reasons the war should end. It's an appeal to pity, which is a logical fallacy.

She is not LITERALLY calling him an idiot, but sitting there and disrespecting his choices and using her son as an example of why the war should end is calling her son an idiot for making a choice that can get him killed. If she wanted to protest the war, she should keep her son the fuck out of it, because he made his own choices in life, and it's absolutely disgusting to see this woman disrespecting her son and his choices for her own political agenda.

[DarkFire168]

Give up. Pierrot > j00 =P

Edit: At least, in this case that is.

[Kustom]

I get what you're saying, having lost a son in the war doesn't make her more (or less) qualified to speak up against Bush. However, you can't discard the fact that people on the other side of the argument would use soldiers and their families for their own propaganda ends, so it does represent something that those people stand up for themselves and speak freely, no matter if their opinions are simplistic or unpopular with the administration. This woman is nothing but symbolic, but it's still something. You live in a country where pictures of soldiers' caskets are hidden for morale purposes. It doesn't hurt to have a grieving mother going public from time to time, it's a reality check. Victims will always be poor judges, so I'm not surprised if what she's asking is unrealistic; but to the extent that the media is willing to give her attention, that's fine with me. If they aren't, too bad for her.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Ok, so let me understand if I have this right...

I get what you're saying, having lost a son in the war doesn't make her more (or less) qualified to speak up against Bush.

Fully agreed, I'm with you here. Losing her son has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she's qualified to speak out against Bush. Speaking out against Bush and losing her son are separate things. I understand and agree.

However, you can't discard the fact that people on the other side of the argument would use soldiers and their families for their own propaganda ends, so it does represent something that those people stand up for themselves and speak freely, no matter if their opinions are simplistic or unpopular with the administration.

But wait a second, regardless of whether or not they're entirely separate things, it's okay for her to invoke her son's name in an argument against Bush because the other side invokes their sons in an argument for Bush? I'm afraid that 'BUT HE DID IT FIRST!' isn't something that's going to win you points in my book (or that makes any rational sense as to the validity/respect of her argument).

This woman is nothing but symbolic, but it's still something.

Symbolic of what, that there are people with soldiers for kids who are anti-war? Is that really a shocker? Did anyone truly need a symbol to remember that not all mothers like the idea that their son could die in combat? I would think that was a no-brainer.

You live in a country where pictures of soldiers' caskets are hidden for morale purposes.

I lived in a country where pictures of soldiers' caskets are hidden. Whether or not that's for morale purposes is assumption/speculation.

It doesn't hurt to have a grieving mother going public from time to time, it's a reality check.It doesn't hurt to have a grieving mother going public from time to time, it's a reality check.

Yes, a grieving mother is perfectly fine. And I never had any objection to her grieving, nor did I ever state that it was disrespectful for her to grieve for her son. Going back to your first sentence, I find it disrespectful that she's invoking her son for political means despite the fact that they are entirely separate issues. Furthermore, if the best reason she can have for doing it is 'because the other side does it too' it becomes even more disrespectful as it becomes even more partisan and political rather than genuine.

Victims will always be poor judges, so I'm not surprised if what she's asking is unrealistic; but to the extent that the media is willing to give her attention, that's fine with me. If they aren't, too bad for her.

The victim in this case was the dead son. And he would make a mighty poor judge being unable to speak at all. The mother wasn't the victim, but she's playing the victim card by proxy in order to score political points at the expense of her son's integrity. The media shouldn't be paying any attention to someone who so callously ignores the sacrifices their children volunteered to make in order to spout rhetoric that has nothing to do with her son.

There is no way that you're going to convince me to respect her more for that, and the only people who WILL respect it are the people who already agree with her. It's preaching to the choir, divisive, disrespectful of her son, a cheap publicity ploy, and disgusting to those of us with the stomach to see through her shitstorm of pity.

God forbid we call a spade a spade if she just lost her son.

[ZPrime]

Now I've read this thread go back and forth and I feel like I should step in and let you see my opinion on this. You may ask why my $0.02 matter? Well I think I'm a really cool person, but I doubt you care about that... So I'll just stick with the fact that my $0.02 are paid to me by Uncle Sam.

I am an enlisted member of the U.S. Military. I have yet to serve in the desert but my time will come. It is not a question of if, but when. I have many close friends that are there right now. All I can speak for is myself;I will not claim to speak for all the enlisted force, but I know my belief is held by MANY of the men and women I stand beside.

We all volunteered for many different reasons. Nomatter why though when they say jump we say how high. We agreed to put our faith in the leaders of this country to make good decisions that would not put our lives at risk unless it was necessary for our county's safety and freedom. I, along side many others, feel that my leaders have failed me by needlessly risking our lives. Now will that stop me from volunteering next year when my turn comes around.. No, becuase it has been started and someone has to fix it. And if by me being there I help save someone then my risk will have personal worth.

As warriors we have 2 reasons for war... Personal, Obligation of our oath. My idea of what a personal reason should be is safety of my loved ones and freedom for my children, however during this time that is not true. I do not feel those things were threatened. I have no hatred or ill will for the people of Iraq for a good number of the resistance is no more then average people defending their homeland against foriegn invaders and are doing nothing more then what I hope every American would do if we were invaded. My personal reason therefore is a sense of brotherhood. The military is one family. Those are my brothers and sisters dieing and it then becomes my duty to do whatever I can to help them, and in this case it means going to the danger and making sure nothing goes wrong and a small mistake takes the lives of another 20 people. This is why I will go to war. And If I die, I hope someone will be held responsible for being reckless with the lives of so many. Untill then I will continue to do my job exactly like I promised I would and hope that the next time a little more precaution is taken before asking someone to make that ultimate sacrifice.



I know this was really long but I hope you take the time to give me your thoughts on any part of it. Oh and as the the point someone kept making about everything was volunteer.. not everything is as clear as you think. It may have been on record that he volunteered for that mission but we have something called Voluntold, not a hard concept to understand, I'll use it in context..

Prvt Jones and Prvt Price are sitting in the chow hall chatting. In walks Sgt Smith
Sgt Smith: "I'm looking for a volunteer to work gate duty this Saturday."
3 Second Pause
Sgt Smith: "Thank you very much for volunteering Prvt Jones."
Exit Sgt Smith
Prvt Price: "Dude, You just got voluntold"

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it does happen ALOT. Not that it matters to me anyways because I would've volunteered to go anyways, refer back to my personal reason.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Sheehan was arrested in Washington...

[DarkFire168]

WTF? When? Why? BREASTS?!?!

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

WTF? When? Why? BREASTS?!?!

Because she was an idiot.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20050927/ts_chicagotrib/sheehanarrestedatprotest

[Roxie]

basically, she sat down and remained seated.