C'mon guys!

[mike]

For the record, when Bin Laden was indicted in 1998, by the Clinton Administration, there was mention made of Iraq-Al Queda ties. So, if the Bush Adminstration got that wrong, they weren't alone.

[samiam]

Well if you go by the media sources you named it's the wonder you come to your opinion, Those media sources are verry liberal though try to come off bi partisan..brainwashed is what they master like moore...Also saddam had muslim words on his flag! And if we were in rwanda or sudan "whitch latley have been looked at" there would be the same crap going on..Misled? Not me,ive watched closley to all news and have heard the same as most...You forget the point about killing thousands of inocent people in his country and naiboring ppl's..What about kuwait? bAnd as far as lieing..when did he lie????? he went on info given! even germany had good info..The fact is to change terrorism you have to install a power in that region..One that dosent use a iron fist..what about all the wemen that couldnt even read or write because the men in those countries wouldnt let them? what about the 15 yr old girl that was killed by her father and familly because she was raped whitch brohgt dishonor to her family????I got one more thing to say,If this democracy thing takes off and makes the world safer,all the nay sayers and narcisists will say it was because of the next administration...regardless of where terorist's are from, you cant fight them simply by one at a time..They want to kill us!!!! Behead us!!!! fanatics that say kill the infadel whitch is who?? non muslim like us!! Far as i am concerned moore is a comunist,all you gotta do is compare beliefes....W manipulating the media..ha ha ha how can you posibly manipulate a media when the media is master manipulaters themselves...
_________________
Sam I Am

[samiam]

And about my spelling? Why do i feel like i am back in school among young snobbs that have nothing better to do? I dont know, i wish that we could talk without a personal atack of ones shortcoming's..Besides i alredy said that im not a master of typing..But does that matter...i feel all warm and fuzzy now..
_________________
Sam I Am

[samiam]

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting
_________________
Sam I Am

[matt gilbert]

Sam, if it bothers you that people don't like your typing (and I happen to be one of them this time) you should get a spell checker. Otherwise, let it go. Mistype away.

And leave Moore alone already. I don't defend him, but at his worst he's no better than Bush is at his Best. And Moore doesn't control the most powerful nation and military force in the free world. Now that's a scary thought...
_________________
Cogito ergo ambulo cum sacculo
-Matt Gilbert

[samiam]

Monday, June 28, 2004
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: I saw Michael Moore's movie on Friday. I won't waste time wading through all of the lies and distortions, Christopher Hitchens in Slate does a better job at deconstructing the movie than I would. Let's just say, I agree wholeheartedly with this description:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

That sums it up pretty well. I don't think supporters of President Bush need be too concerned over the impact the movie will have on the public. If Moore's aim in the movie is to turn people against Bush, I think he has failed. The movie is so over the top, only those individuals already against the President and the war are going to find it persuasive.

Moore is actually doing a disservice to those who disagree with the war and Bush, because by mixing legitimate points of contention with outright lies he weakens the merits of the anti-Bush, anti-war argument.

From a political standpoint this movie will not hurt the President one iota. In fact, the political danger of Fahrenheit 9/11 rests far more with the Democrats than with the GOP. The more the Democratic party is associated with Michael Moore and the extreme left, the better for Republicans. Democratic strategists and party leaders who don't see this need to start hanging out with different people.

It's one thing to argue against the war and Bush, it's another to insinuate that President Bush and the Bush family have a nefarious relationship with the bin Laden family and the House of Saud. This movie will be great fodder for conspiracy theorists on the left, and I'm sure I will get a ton of email insisting that President Bush does have a nefarious relationship with the Saudis and the bin Laden family.

Just like in the 90's you would hear the ridiculous rumors from the quacks on the far-right that Clinton had Ron Brown killed, along with dozens of other people who got in his way. (Just Google "Clinton killed Ron Brown" and you will see what I mean). If the right had as talented of a film maker as Michael Moore in the 90's do you think the press would have shown the same respect for a "documentary" on Clinton that included the far out Mena/CIA drugs for guns nonsense?

What you really feel at the movie is the passion and hatred for President Bush among the crowd. There is a palpable, pathological disgust for the man in the movie theatre. Throughout the movie Moore uses clip after clip to make Bush look stupid and the crowd breaks out in approving laughter.

But there are two scenes that struck me as informative. Moore does the same routine on Colin Powell, setting him up to look foolish by using a clip of Powell getting his makeup done for an interview. But the expected laughter from the crowd didn't materialize. It was almost as if you could see the seeds of doubt climbing into the audience's head whispering, "wait a minute, Colin Powell isn't a bumbling idiot."

The same thing happens a little later in the film when Moore strings together a scene making fun of Bush, then Cheney, then Rumsfeld, and then finally Tony Blair. You could hear the audience go quiet again, as if questioning themselves for a split second, "is Tony Blair really a bumbling, evil man also?"

As I walked out among the crowd of rabid Bush-haters I realized these people are going to be profoundly distraught if President Bush is reelected. There is an enormous amount of emotion invested on the left that President Bush is a complete moron who shouldn't be President.

But when the stupid guy beats you in 2000, and then beats you in 2002, and then beats you again in 2004, at what point do you begin to question which person or party is the one really being stupid?
MAYBE THIS WILL HELP ME A LITTLE..
_________________
Sam I Am

[evenstar]

Anybody wanna talk about hiking? Canyoneering? Bouldering? Climbing? Stuff this sites about?
_________________
John Richardson and Richie Rich, El Perro de Playero
http://members.tripod.com/~evenstar/index.html
http://www.arizonahikers.com
When the Man waked up he said, "What is Wild Dog doing here?" And the Woman said, "His name is not Wild Dog anymore, but the First Friend, because he will be our friend for always and always and always. Take him with you when you go hunting."
--Rudyard Kipling, from Just So Stories, 1902

[matt gilbert]

When did the stupid guy beat us in 2002? Did they change the election interval and forget to tell me? And last I heard he hadn't beat anybody yet this year, maybe I missed an election?

Wether Bush is a moron or not only begs the question, how did he get a degree from an ivy league school when he can hardly string a meaningful sentance together without speechwriters (and even then he seems to have trouble). The president represents us to the rest of the world. All I'm saying is that I would rather have someone represent us that sounds like he has a modicum of education and just a dab of literacy, oh yeah, it'd be nice not to be lied to on the pretext of finishing daddy's business, but I guess theres just some things you have to live with.
_________________
Cogito ergo ambulo cum sacculo
-Matt Gilbert

[samiam]

ohh please lets do hooli,im getting heart burn...
_________________
Sam I Am

[matt gilbert]

it looks like theres some of that outdoors talk going on over here
http://www.arizonahikers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1678
_________________
Cogito ergo ambulo cum sacculo
-Matt Gilbert

[mike]

Even with our differences, we can all get along...

_________________
[/size]

[ck1]

With regard for spelling, no, we're not in school, but we are adults who have resources available to them to help them communicate effectively. A certain level of expectation exists which ought to be followed.

I don't believe that anyone here claimed that Moore was anything more than a film maker. If you don't like his stuff, don't watch it. Having family who lived in Flint, I appreciated what he did for the people of that area...so...I kinda like him...I don't think he's a communist, unless Webster has redefined the term.

I think the bias of the media is dependant upon your particular perspective at that particular time. But I wonder whom they're biased toward? Most of the major media outlets are owned by heavy contributers to the current president. The same was said when Clinton was in office....so exactly what is the bias? I mean, how can there be such a huge bias if there is more coverage of the outrage over a movie than the outrage of why there are no wmd, or why the patriot missles hit only 2 targets in Gulf 1, and faired only slightly better if Gulf 2, hell. I'm kinda tired of hearing about a media bias.

And why does Clinton always come up when defending Bush's actions? Everyone knows that Clinton made errors and mistakes and screwups, but what is the relavance to the current administration...I mean aside from the fact that Bush used Clinton's military to win the wars in Afgahn/Iraq...

God I love this website.
_________________
-Colin

"The Journey is the Destination"

[AZBrad123]

Nice pic Mike, and point taken. I promise i am done. Nothing more out of me. I am going to only talk about hiking now and nothing political....Promise!

[mike]

[evenstar]

OK, think I'll go over to Daddee's site: http://hikersinaz.blogspot.com/ and start a thread about hiking and stuff like that!
_________________
John Richardson and Richie Rich, El Perro de Playero
http://members.tripod.com/~evenstar/index.html
http://www.arizonahikers.com
When the Man waked up he said, "What is Wild Dog doing here?" And the Woman said, "His name is not Wild Dog anymore, but the First Friend, because he will be our friend for always and always and always. Take him with you when you go hunting."
--Rudyard Kipling, from Just So Stories, 1902