Yeh I am pissed off today :(

As we continue on our war path internationally, we have the right wingers and republicans trying to quash more and more of our civil rights, feedoms, etc.

Shit, you don't have the correct domain name, you loose it and mabey goto jail. WTF is next with this administration.

Every day I miss Clinton more and more. At least we have the Aclu fighting for us. I just donated another $500.00 today to them, not a huge donation, but I do what i can.

even know Aclu is known to be left wing, etc, etc I do remember many times them fighting the Clinton Admin. on various issues.

Deep down I just can't belive some of those of you who voted for bush now feel the same way about him...

mabey I am ignorant. If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..

:(

If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..
***************************************

People, don't despair!

fucked in the head or not,
Oprano will still do business with you if you are not French or German
;-)))

Todd you need to get your panties out of a bunch.

I still support Bush, infact I have more confidence in him now, then I did 2 years ago.

Mike,

so you have complete support for him and his administration hugh?

is this war wise, fighting terrorism only, or are we talking domestic issues also?

please inform me. Don't feel like you have to support this asshole because of pride ok. I know my clinton did wrong things :(

The domain name thing is bullshit Todd, that is not Bush but other Republicans in the house.

Lets face it, Democrats and Republicans both are anti-porn, and will stand against it and do things like this to get PUBLICITY - to get more votes.

No politician is going to come out and say " Hey you know what, Porn is not bad.... infact I like it"

..cuz those who do,
become politicians no more
;-)))

Mike,

it's not just the domain thing, I know that won't make it through the courts, and I know politically it best for both dems and repubs to take a strong stance against porn, that's cool with me.

I don't know, just more and more of this Patriot act, rights, etc.

just really burning me out man

I have not seen an erosion of my rights Todd.

Some of the things in the Patriot act I do not like, I think it could have been done to focus just on terrorism - that is they can tap lines and such, BUT can only use thae info gained for anti-terrorism crimes. If they tap a drug dealers line, and they find out about drugs, or whatever - then its thrown out by a court.

They should have worded it to just protect NATIONAL SECURITY.... I have not read the details, maybe it does.... I do not know.

I seem to recall quite a movement on our boards a few years ago for American webmasters to exercise their right to vote anyone but a Republican back into office.

Now Bush is Superman. What % of the vote did he get?

If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".



Last edited by Evil Chris at Mar 26 2003, 06:57 PM

Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.

I like Bush INCREASINGLY because of his leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq. Great leaders lead. They don't follow.

I don't like his budget *ahem* plan though. I'm glad it got half-way nixed. Shoulda been more. Fuck, get that budget under control. Don't make it worse. I can't make sense of those tax cuts and I am even a sometimes supply-sider. Probably a political move. He promised tax cuts. I think one already passed. Pass another - he can campaign on:

"Cut taxes twice. Won two wars. Passed education bill".

Hard to listen to Bush talk sometimes. Worst public speaker for a president I can remember.

We'll see. Undecided on how much I like his presidency yet but I sure as hell support the war and all coalition troops. Could go either way for me. If budget gets more in line and war goes well, I like him more than Clinton. If the opposite, less. Only half-way through his administration. Pretty difficult for me to form an opinion only half-way there.

I don't understand something though. How could one blaim Bush for a bill that hasn't even been voted on yet?

I voted for Bush and I'm happy I did. Do I agree with him 100% on everything? Nope, but it always comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.

Colin, public speaking is tough. I've done a ton of it in my life (even won a few awards) and I was always nervous even though I was only speaking to 100-500 people. I can't imagine what it's like to speak to the world. It's easy when you know everyone in the audience, much tougher when you don't know anyone. Clinton is a gifted speaker, no doubt about that, but it's easy to tell people what they want to hear. It's much tougher when people don't want to hear your message. I gave a presentation at an IBM conference a couple years ago about some new Microsoft technology and it was how I'm sure Bush feels when it's over. (IBM guys hate Microsoft in case you didn't know) Nothing I said could possibly convince them, nothing I said could change their minds, etc. At the end of an hour and half I was drained both physically and emotionally. In a long winded way I guess I'm trying to make the point it isn't easy to tell people what they don't want to hear especially when they are in a crowd.

Ulfie,

I think it would be disrespectful for me to say anything negative about Bush during this time of war, so I will respectfully stop.

We can discuss his public speaking soon. :D

Colin ... the rule I live by is never say anything about a President during a time of war that was not said about Lincoln or Roosevelt. The idea that criticising the President is somehow inapprorpriate in time of war is absolute bullshit. Roosevelt went so far as to reward a reporter an Iron Cross due to his criticism of the President, and Dewey ran against Roosevelt in part by charging him with being a defeatist.

The idea that criticism of a war is somehow unAmerican is historically inaccurate; that it equates to a lack of patriotism is no more than simple-minded bullshit. Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of the Mexican American War, both before it and all through it - and I don't guess many folks question his patriotism. World War I was greatly criticized, and probably would have been criticized more had it not been for Attorney General Palmer, who makes Ashcroft look like George McGovern.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 26 2003, 08:51 PM

Todd (and all the rest of you Clinton-lovers),
You might as well kiss his ass goodbye...he can never be your President again (If I wasn't an agnostic, I might say something like "Thank___).

As for percentages, you must be deliberately trying to appear ignorant. Either that, or you never learned about the Electoral College. Oh, I forgot, you Libs hate the Constitution except when you can pervert it to your advantage... :moon:

Mike please... if you have to resort to name calling, you lose all your credibility. Just ban me from the board if you can't take hard questions.

Evil Chris - I see you have a link in your sig to bowling for columbine

Just want to check with you to make sure you know Michael Moore is Satire and not Documentry


John Fund.. Wall Street Journal
Friday, March 21, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

With Hollywood in a fever pitch against the war in Iraq, Michael Moore is likely to win the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards.
"Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore's work of anti-American propaganda, has grossed over $15 million, an amazing sum for a film billed as a documentary.

But the film, a merry dissection of America's "culture of fear" and love of guns, is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that it ought to be classed as a work of fiction.

Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation. "Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism," observes Andrew Sullivan in London's Sunday Times.

Mr. Moore plays into all of the worst stereotypes and distortions about America. "Bowling for Columbine" attempts to explain interventions by the U.S. military as rooted in an inherently violent domestic culture. "I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people,' " he told NBC's "Today" show. "Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' We're the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?"

To make this strained connection, Mr. Moore tries to make us believe that the two mentally disturbed high school students who massacred their Fellow students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., grew up in a community that has a sinister connection to the military-industrial complex.

A Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton manufactures "weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Moore claims. The factory actually makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space. And the very title of Mr. Moore's film is based on a deception. It refers to the bowling class that the Columbine killers supposedly took the morning they committed their murders. The only problem is that they actually cut the class.

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in
which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.

Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the
canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000
and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film dhahahahats NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.

Ben Fritz ofSpinsanity.org also notes that Mr. Moore has "apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988" to buttress his claim that racial symbolism is frequently misused in American politics. His leading example is the case of Willie Horton, a murderer who became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. Mr. Moore shows the Bush ad that generically attacked a prison furlough program in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts . Superimposed over the footage of prisoners entering and exiting a prison are the words "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

While the caption appears to be part of the original ad, Mr. Moore actually
inserted it; the ad made no mention of Horton. (Another ad, sponsored by the National Security Political Action Committee, a conservative group independent of the Bush campaign, did mention Horton; it aired only briefly in a few cable markets.) The phony Moore caption also is inaccurate; Horton brutalized a Maryland couple and raped the wife, but didn't kill anybody while on furlough.

In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.

When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the question. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

"Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said.

"No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

Mr. Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If "Bowling for Columbine" is a comedy, most of its fans don't know it. They actually believe they're watching something that is in rough accord with reality.



Last edited by Vick at Mar 27 2003, 12:13 AM

clinton lead the dems.. bush is leading the republicans.. you really can't *seriously* believe that there is all this wild wacky republican policy being thrown around without bush's blessing do you?


You're not supposed to wait til you actually see the erosion, you're supposed to prevent the erosion from happening at all... or do you prefer to find yourself or your colleagues in prison for obscenity and *then* say "hey, i'm seeing an erosion of my rights here". I mean seriously Mike, not to start shit but you and a few others here are the first to jump to arms (no pun) when even the mere mention of gun control is made (such as banning assault rifles), but somebody begins talking about ways to punish porners and you dont take the same attitude.

It seems contradictory to only get excited about proactively defending certain civil rights.

I'd bet 100 bucks that if democrats were intiating these policies you would be more worried.

Mike, there is something important about "erosion of rights" - you never notice until they have gone too far. Just like erosion under a paved road, you don't see it until suddenly the road drops six feet into a major sinkhole.

The economy is the same thing - tax rebates on the scale proposed is erosion... because they are taking tomorrow's tax dollars and giving them to you today. Like a payday loan. Sooner or later, you have to pay anyway.

There should NEVER EVER EVER be tax cuts without equivenant SPENDING cuts. That is bad economics. The debt increases, and the money needed to pay for that debt continues to increase. The more tax dollars that go to paying the debt and interest on the debt limit the government's own ability to pay for current programs, and forces future increases in your taxes. No voodoo economics here... simple math, really. The more you borrow, the more interest you pay. The problem is this: Typically, the bill usually comes due during the NEXT President's term, so someone else gets blamed for the debt, for the increased taxes, and the reduced government services.

The Bush economic plan increase government spending, cuts taxes (government income), and now will need probably 200-300 billion more to pay for the war. For 290 million people, you are each looking at $1000 for the war.

What will happen? Junior will be gone, a new democratic president will be in, taxes will have to go up, services will go down, and you will shit on him for stealing all your money... when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy.

Alex

Mark it on the calendar, I agree with Alex on 2 things in one day :P

Mike please... if you have to resort to name calling, you lose all your credibility. Just ban me from the board if you can't take hard questions.[/b][/quote]
EvilChris, this is the only way Mike knows how to get his point across ... he doesn't know how to communicate except to be rude and obnoxious to those who aren't 'bush ass kissers'... and when that doesn't work, he calls in his buddies to help with the name calling

:wnw:

don't forget, you can't have an opinion on oprano that isn't pro bush or you are a moron! remember this simple rule and you'll be fine!!

:okthumb:

CJ...

Is it ok to be pro-bush but not pro-Bush? ... :blink:

Agree with Alex that by time rights disappear, it's much harder to get them back... Any government that gets a good hold on one testicle isn't going to loosen grip cause you say 'Ouch'... it's just going to reach for the other one...

LOL
oops, a double negative ;-)

I'm not not pro-bush, bush is good ... but usually bald is better ;-)

;/

Pornodoggy,

To start with, you need a new example. Roosevelt certainly didn't admire the reporter for his criticism. He gave the reporter a Nazi Iron Cross. Hardly a compliment.

I agree that there is enormous historical precedent for criticizing the president during the time of war. There are as many examples as there have been wars. We agree.

I don't live by the rule of what other people have done at other times. I live by my own set of standards.

You will notice that I carefully said, and I quote, "I think it would be disrespectful for ME to say anything negative about Bush during this time of war". I didn't say "I think it would be disrespectful for ANYONE to say something negative about Bush during time of war". Everyone
else can do as they please ;-) Though I must admit I think the violence protests are doing more harm than good.

I also didn't say it would be UnAmerican. You've assumed I meant that. It has nothing to do with what country I was born or live in.

I said I would feel disrespectful. I certainly don't find respect to be "simple-minded bullshit". When someone carries a great weight on their shoulders to do something which I think is right, I will respect them. I feel like morale of the both the troops and the administration is very important right now and don't wish to add to it on the negative side - though my voice is a quiet one buried in the noise.

United We Stand



Last edited by Colin at Mar 27 2003, 04:49 AM

Many rights tend to "erode" during times of great uncertainty. It is not historically based on party. I'm speaking principally of the various acts meant to curb terrorist activities.

The Japanese internment camps were formed by Roosevelt's executive order during WW II, not the act of the a Democrat or a Republican but the result of a situation.

How about the Red Scare? Democrat Woodrow Wilson's evil attorney general really got us going there.

There are many more examples.

I think history shows that such acts tend to be the reaction to a situation and not some evil party politics.

Colin, surely you realize that my use of the Roosevelt example was to demonstrate the degree of agitation the president felt regarding the criticism the reporter was heaping on him, and had nothing to do with any "admiration" that Roosevelt felt for him. It was simply an example of what Roosevelt endured in a time of a war of far greater magnitude and far more clear-cut causes than the current situtation.

Further, nobody said respect was simple-minded bullshit. Perhaps bullshit was too harsh a word, so allow me to rephrase it. I think that the idea that extra deference should be paid to the President in time of war is erroneous. If folks in the 40s felt free to criticize Roosevelt for a war that was thrust upon him, and in fact criticize him for not being prepared for the war that some of the same critics wouldn't allow him to prepare for (stating facts without regard to parties here), I feel no compulsion to be bound by a higher standard today.

While I doubt this has anything to do with your feelings on the matter, I realize that in the Orano environment it is very politically incorrect to say anything negative about this President or this war. That's okay ... I've been politically incorrect all my life. Any objectives for this war that extend beyond disarming Saddam Hussein are the material of fantasy and pipedream. I suspect this President is going to pay dearly when the piper's bill comes due.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 27 2003, 05:21 AM

We all took the political test here a few weeks ago and were nearly precisely evenly split left/right.
I see very mixed opinions here as far as war, Bush, politics, etc.

For every JR, there is an Alex.
For every Torone, there is a PornoDoggy

Yeah, I see now.

I don't see any reason for YOU to be bound by a higher standard either. <_<

i certainly did not. In fact, I was one of the absente ballots for Gore that I have since learned only sometimes get counted before the result is declared. With all the effort I have exert to vote it would be nice if they looked at mine when other people who only have to walk to the end of their street don't even bother.

I will not be voting for Bush for a variety of reasons but as someone in a fairly unique position of being an American living abroad for non-military reasons I actually physically felt safer under Clinton. I also felt his administration gave two hoots about us ex-pats. I get no such feeling from Bush.

oh and Todd...the Democrats abroad group in the UK is kind of useless. I have been asking them for four years to help me change my party registration to Democrat (family pressures made me register as *ick* republican when I sent in my registration on my 18th b-day). No one seems to be able to tell me how to make that change from over here and every election I ask them.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/control.gif
http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/argue.gif

this much I agree on :gbounce:


that's all I have to add to this thread:)

I know Vick... I've known all along. That was a good read, thanks.
There's a lot of truth in this kind of humor though. Case in point...

http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gu...lencestats.html

This isn't the first time a satirical movie was made to get a fact-based point across, it certainly won't be the last.

Finally .. I agree with cj again! Things can now return to normal ;-)))

:cdance: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :cdance:

Evil Chris - thought you might

What concerns me is that Micheal Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering

I kind of figure we have Dennis Miller on the right with thought provoking, biting satire and Michael Moore further on the left with the "work" he does
I would hope they balance each other out somewhat with regards to influencing popular public opinion

And it doesn't help that he just won an Oscar for Best Documentary! :zoinks:

While I didn't necessary like MM, I at least respected him for saying what he thought. He's become nothing more than a pure entertainer now and that respect is gone :(

I like Michael Moore. He's funny.

Yeah but looks aren't everything

"when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy."

Hmmm...Can we say 2000?

Vick, how does this differ from the radio windbags like Rush Limbaugh (one of my favorites) that misrepresents almost every single event in political history to shade things to his side? He does it under the guise of "information you need to know"... I was amazed in listening to him how often he criticizes dems for something, and praises repubs for the same action a minute later. How he forgets things so quickly... when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency... he just glosses over that and points to "democratic do-goodie liberal money wasting"... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time...

I honestly think that type of stuff does way more damage than anything a MM or his kind can ever do, because it is presented with the authority and the "ring of truth"... no attempt at comedy.

Worse, judging by this board, some people actually buy into it. :-(

Alex

Alex - the difference is ......
Rush is a known windbag and his show is obviously his opinion

Moore won an Oscar for a documentary AND THE MOVIE WAS SATIRE!!!!!
Do you see a difference there?

Would Moore give the Oscar back because his movie was satire, filled with inaccuracies and set ups to get his point across?
It was not a documentary, which is what he accepted an award for.

The danger is when satire is presented as FACT and the presenter doesn't acknowledge it

Again everyone is aware that Rush is presenting his take on issues,
Moore is purposely deceiving .... and there in lies the brainwashing and danger

Vick, I see no difference at all. Moore makes his opinion known by taking documentary and adding satirical twists. He claims it is the truth. Rush Limbaugh gets on the radio and states as fact things that are not entirely true (often due to omission, or by taking information out of context).

I am WAY more concerned that people listen to Rush and take his opinion as fact than I do from someone watching one of Moore's films... who has the power?

Rush's site today: "Only The Rich Pay Taxes - Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes " - sounds bad, until you go a little further in the math: What percentage of the US population works at or near minimum wage? of the 96.09% of taxes, how much does the upper 2-3% pay? Are you doing this on a percentage of income or pure dollars?

It is misleading, it isn't entirely honest, and it misrepresents the real facts... you have a sliding tax scale in the US, and 50% of a BIG number is alot higher than 30% of a bunch of small numbers... Say you make a million, pay half a million in tax... another guy makes 15k, pays 30%... how many 15k guys does it take? In this case, top 1% pays 50% of the taxes! OH MY GOD!

It's horseshit at it's finest.

Alex

here's another gem... taking the opinion of one person and applying it to an entire nation:

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_03...rder.guest.html

Sort of like using Jesse Jackson to sum up the entire US... woo hoo!

Alex

Fill in the blank:

Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to ______________________


:P

The Rush Limbaughs and Michael Moores of America put their spin on things, and so do the elected officials. Maybe even moreso the elected officials.

I think you are missing the gravity of extremes that Moore will go to


"Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks." "


Do you see what Moore did????
and you see this act as the same as Rush presenting figures in a fashion that supports his arguments - and Rush does have a point as to who pays what amout of taxes in America

There is a world of difference between outright lies and deception and uses statistics in a manner that supports your claim

Moore outright lies and deceives and claims his work is factual and accepts an Oscar for his work

Alex, do you find Moore's action acceptable?

Evil Chris the above act goes WAY beyond spin

Fill in the blank:

Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to ______________________


:P[/b][/quote]
Colin, you perfectly exemplfy something I posted yesterday - alot of people here when they are wrong, just don't answer to the points, but rather go into a round of extremism and name calling.

I know you hate it when someone points out that every republicans favorite windbag is lying to you... because until it was pointed out as a lie, you were more than willing to swallow it whole.

Sucks, don't it?

Alex

Vick, I am not saying Rush is worse - but what I am is saying is that there is ALOT of manipulation going on from all sides. Rush speaks "the truth" - his website says: "RushLimbaugh.com Archives: the learning never stops since 24/7 members can scour the website archives for two full weeks"

LEARNING? Usually learning involves telling the truth, don't it?

At the end of the day, I can see the same techniques used by Rush being used here - changing history by omitting or ignoring facts that don't jive with the points trying to be made. Shouting people down with name calling and extremism...

We will look back 10-15 years from now and remember this era as the "time of bullshit".

Alex