Saw (Farenheit 911)

Posted by: alAnonymous

Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 12:47 AM

It was alright. I've never seen any of his films so I didn't know what to expect. It makes me sad to see that the news media aren't doing their job. Shouldn't the evening news be interviewing the families of soldiers who don't make it back? Interviewing the soldiers in hospitals? There's really no balanced coverage in this country when you think about it...I think that's because today's generation of news consumers don't know what it would look like.<br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:41 AM

Just announcing the names of the people who have died on television is considered SO political that it gets banned, so...<br><br><br>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 06:37 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Shouldn't the evening news be interviewing the families of soldiers who don't make it back?<p><hr></blockquote><p>My local news tends to interview families of fallen soldiers who are local to the area. But then, I live in Massachusetts - the most liberal state in the nation.<br><br>The surprising thing is, that most of the families seem to be very supportive of the war.<br><br>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 06:42 AM

Usually grieving families don't appreciate news cameras shoved in their faces. There is always complaining when this happens.<br><br>But I agree, every news organization seems to have a political bias. There's not much integrity in news anymore.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 06:42 AM

my wife and i bought our tickets online last night. she is going at 6:15 and i am going at 9 -- since we have 2 small kids and didn't find childcare. my wife accidentally bought a ticket at a theater that is on the other side of town where we used to go before we moved. so, if that theater sells out, there will be one empty seat (since we switched to a theater nearby). <br><br>i'll be wearing my custom made kerry shirt:<br><br>[img]http://dzn.zazzle.com/isapi/design_shirt...amp;max_dim=325[/img] <br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 06:54 AM

I just saw Fahrenheit 911 btw.<br><br>It's really amazing how the current US administration made fool of the whole world. It's scary to see that they had the power to manipulate at least half of the country and the congress to go to a war which was based on simple lies. The best part was when they showed Bush/Cheney/Rhumsfeld saying that they are certain that there are WMDs and they have excellent intelligence for it. Than later they backed off a bit, than some more, etc... They made an ass of their mouth.<br><br>I have to add that I supported the war on Iraq, because I thought that it's good to get rid of Hussein. However I'm scared that if Bush&Co can go to war for no reason than what's next? USA supposed to be an example of great democracy, in fact now a shameful administration is in power that everyone laughs at. Sorry to say that, but it's the truth.<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:16 AM

I've seen that shirt around. It's pretty funny. On the back it says, "I'm with Stupid" and an arrow pointing to Kerry.<br><br>"You're off the edge of the map, mate! Here there be monsters!"
Posted by: nutty

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:22 AM

No thats the Cheney shirt you are thinking of.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:25 AM

Whny would a Cheeney shirt say "I'm With Stuipid" and have an arrow pointing to Kerry? <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:33 AM

because cheney is satan! <br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:40 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>because cheney is satan!<p><hr></blockquote><p>I thought Bill Gates was Satan. What gives?<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:41 AM

Well Dan Rather closes his "news" broadcast with "honoring" one fallen soldier every night. Ofcourse it's always a female soldier or father of 2 or more kids and he never mentions why they joined the military in the first place, but he's just trying to honor them. Ya, right that's why he does it. <br><br> Vote Yay Vote Nay [i]Now watch this drive
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:41 AM

One is Beelzebub, the other Belial. There's room for more, too. Who might Moloch be, I wonder <br><br>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Who might Moloch be, I wonder<p><hr></blockquote><p>I vote Michael Moore.<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:47 AM

If there was a smart film student out there (who isn't a rabid liberal and that's the stretch) he/she would make a "documentary" about Moore. I would make it completely in his "style" of editorializing and taking Moore's sound bites and film clips out of context and make him out to be whatever you want. It would be great because Moore would be getting a taste of his own medicine and listening to him defending himself would be priceless and the film student would get instant notoriety. <br><br> Vote Yay Vote Nay [i]Now watch this drive
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:47 AM

That would alliterate <br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:54 AM

Yea it must be nice to be able to pick and choose what you want in order to rewrite history. I always thought the news media was bad about spinning stories, but Moore really takes the cake. What a load of Cr@p!<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 07:59 AM

Michael,<br><br>I read in today's Boston Herald that there is somebody doing a documentary just like the one you described. I don't remember the name of it, but I do remember a book that they mentioned along the same vein: Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man. You can check it out here<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:01 AM

I saw Micheal Moore on a few interviews recently .. The Daily Show .. And he admited he's not fair in his movie. <br><br>Quote:<br><br>"I'm not fair. I have an opinion. The facts presented are the facts, they're indisputable but my commentary is my opinion and what I'm presenting is an opinion. You're free to disagree with it but I think it's right."<br><br>He admitted to Matt Lauer on the Today Show that he doesn't like Bush or his family, and that the movie is his opinion, right or wrong. Given that I've never liked much of what this inflamatory partisan has to say, that he makes millions off of running America down, I think I'll pass on seeing this admittedly slanted piece of propaganda.<br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: rigger

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:12 AM

A documentary it is not. Just more garbage from a neo marxist. Rich must be taxed at 70%. I wonder what his hollywood millionaire friends think of it.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:19 AM

i can tell you that i really dislike dubya and i can point to the facts that caused me to dislike him greatly. i would not be fair if i wrote a critique of dubya, but i think i could easily be honest, so i am not sure what moore has given up by admitting what he did. he has a point of view and that's true of every documentary that exists. obviously, you *greatly* disagree with his POV, eh? <br><br>i doubt you are his target audience, though. i think he is trying to rally the democrats (the choir). plus, this will likely be a powerful tool of persuasion for those individuals who are undecided and might help to energize those individuals who like to complain about gov't but don't tend to vote to make a difference. who knows at this point?<br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: Michael

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:22 AM

They ofcourse love it. It already won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. And will take an Oscar as did BFC in the category Best Documenatry. What a joke. What these limosine liberals fail to grasp is that if they get their wish they don't get to keep all the goodies the have.<br><br><br><br><br> Vote Yay Vote Nay [i]Now watch this drive
Posted by: nutty

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:25 AM

Like the younger voters that have never voted. The old school republicans and neo cons will not be swayed by anything.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:26 AM

i think it's funny that all of these "millionaires" you are railing against are for a gov't that taxes them more and not you, but you guys who aren't "millionaires" fight tooth and nail to protect them at your own expense (increased property taxes, increased user fees, increased state taxes, increased everything else). i wonder if they are using some weird jedi mind trick on you? <br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:29 AM

As I've said, even my very liberal brother has a tough time with Moore's aversion to coming somewhere near the neighborhood of truthfulness. And he IS the target demo. <br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:31 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I saw Micheal Moore on a few interviews recently .. The Daily Show .. And he admited he's not fair in his movie.<p><hr></blockquote><p>of course he's not fair. being fair would go much further, like investigating the real reasons behind the war and the real intentions that motivated these lies. Moore said he's not fair because he wants to soften the effect of his movie. if you are Bush&Co fan it's gonna be hard to stay one after the movie. must be extremely disturbing for those people.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:35 AM

well, i guess i'll soon see how much moore has learned from the BFC movie and the accusations made against his claims in that movie. i would hope that he was more careful this time around. and, it sounds like he took the extra effort of double-checking his facts this time around and even deleted stuff from the movie that he couldn't twice verify as truth. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt until i see it myself tonight.<br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:42 AM

It really comes down to this: Bush made his case for removing Saddam from power (as did Clinton, Kerry and others). Either you believe Bush or you don't. I believe the President. Now, can I criticize the way we've conducted this war since it began? Maybe, and I say maybe because we don't get, from our media, the full story of what's going on in Iraq. By this I mean we hear nothing of the good being done in Iraq. We get our daily Abu Grahib update, but hear nothing of torture videos that were being sold on the streets of Baghdad. We didn't get daily updates the uncovering of mass graves, testimony to the levels of evil we eradicated from Iraq and how appreciative Iraqi's are. Instead, in a three month period, our New York Times runs 140 Abu Grahib stories, and only nine mentions of toture committed by Saddam Hussein. <br><br>Terrorist insurgents have mounted a broad new offensive in Iraq. They can't win militarily—but can they repeat the North Vietnames feat of 1968, exploiting our reporters to demoralize America politically.<br><br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by:

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:55 AM

"...neo cons will not be swayed by anything."<br><br>And the paleo libs will?<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:56 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>like investigating the real reasons behind the war and the real intentions that motivated these lies.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm curious, what do the anti-Bushers/anti-Iraq warers think the "real" reason(s) is/are?<br><br>Just your opinions, no need to link to any background and I'm not even in any mood to present any personal challenges to the opinions, in this thread. I'm just curious.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: garyW

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:06 AM

...the "real" reason...<br><br>Saddam's art collection.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:08 AM

i'd like to know that myself, but I think it's because of the oil. Saudi and the other Gulf countries are already under US "control".<br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:10 AM

Payback for the assignation attempt of Bush Sr by Saddam<br><br>Finish the Job that the 91 gulf war didnt<br><br>Ideology war with a then easily defeat-able enemy<br><br>Divert attention away from not being able to find the man responsible for the 9-11 attack, Osama bin laden.<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:13 AM

There are a lot more taxes than income and capital gains. Add up all the gas tax, sales tax, excise tax, property tax, dining tax etc. and before you know it you're talking about real money. <br><br> Vote Yay Vote Nay [i]Now watch this drive
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:18 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>i'd like to know that myself, but I think it's because of the oil.<p><hr></blockquote><p>One problem with that is, we could get the oil cheaper when Iraq was ruled by Saddam and had sanctions. And, if it's truly about the oil then we attacked the wrong country, we should have invaded China who will be challenging us for more and more of the stuff very rapidly. The saudi's and other oil producing countries are under our "control" only in the sense that they make the most money off of the States. As soon as China becomes more profitable, they'll whore themselves out to China instead of the U.S.<br><br>**Edit- I do agree with nutty's assesment of payback for trying to assassinate his dad.<br><br>Also, the recent links from Russia probably played a part if indeed the information is credible, and I don't think Putin would be lying about it.<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:23 AM

it's high economics, so i don't want to go into that since neither of us has enough understanding on this issue. all i can say is that there are MANY who disagree with you on that in the Middle East. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> i think it's funny that all of these "millionaires" you are railing against are for a gov't that taxes them more and not you, but you guys who aren't "millionaires" fight tooth and nail to protect them at your own expense (increased property taxes, increased user fees, increased state taxes, increased everything else). i wonder if they are using some weird jedi mind trick on you? <p><hr></blockquote><p>A Jedi mind trick! But there really is no other explanation is there. The Bushco apologists who will never have to worry about those gouging taxes incurred on stock dividends. Ranting about the 70% of taxes paid by the top three percent of the ultra rich. I can fathom Rush Limbaugh. He's rich and he makes a good living tending the sheep.<br><br>But the rest must be a Jedi mind trick. This Moore movie must be messing with the mind trick big time because the sheep are sure restless.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"i'd like to know that myself, but I think it's because of the oil."<br><br>One problem with that is, we could get the oil cheaper when Iraq was ruled by Saddam and had sanctions.<p><hr></blockquote><p>you assume that being about "oil" means cheaper oil for you and me...perhaps it's about oil in the sense that the oil industry profits and companies (e.g., haliburton) get huge contracts to control the oil whether the end users feel much of an effect at all? that's the way i've always assumed that the phrase, "about oil" meant. people are capitalizing big time on the iraqi oil industry.<br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:48 AM

About oil .. <br><br>If it was about stealing oil, wouldn't be easier to just steal oil from Venezuela? It's closer. Also, if it was about stealing oil, why didn't we do it in 1991 while Saddam's army was in ruin? Wouldn't it have been easier?<br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:51 AM

there is no point guessing. we need a proper investigation by professionals.<br><br>
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 10:29 AM

First let me preface my comments with this: I'm not anti-bush/anti-iraqi war and anyone who questions bush's policies is not necessarily anti-bush. I don't criticize the man, I criticize his performance. I believe in the Peter Principle which states that "in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence" and W is it's most celebrated personality.<br><br>I'm curious, what do the anti-Bushers/anti-Iraq warers think the "real" reason(s) is/are?<br><br>The "real" reasons? What difference does it make? They're not my reasons, they're the presidents reasons and since he's never discussed the reasons with me personally I'm led to guess. I am sure in the early days before the war commenced our president was seeking a concensous to justify sending our military into harms way and used whatever means necessary to unite the nation behind him. Did he make his case for war? You bet he did. He told us what we wanted to hear. Didn't he? So let moore have his say.<br><br>I listened carefully to the president's state-of-the-union address on January 28, 2003, where he cited several reasons for going to war, the gravest of which was that Iraq had taken possession of yellowcake uranium from africa. If anyone listening to his speech was waiting for the other shoe to drop, it was at that moment. WMD got our attention. I would suggest everyone go back and read this document, especially the parts about Al Quada and how they're on the run.<br><br>excerpt: We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. (Applause.)<br><br>As this whole affair unfolds and fact is separated from fiction we are left with the "what" to ponder and THAT'S what matters now. Not why, but what now. We'll leave it to the historians to put it into perspective and in another 75 years we'll know all the facts from which we can uncover the "real" reasons. As for me, I'll go to my grave never knowing the real why as long as the media buries their heads in the sand and the american people continue to believe that you can trust everything the government tells you. I applaud the courageous men and women in government who are breaking ranks to publish their perspectives.<br><br>In light of what is taking place in america right now, it's citizens should be outraged by our president's inflammatory remarks in his SOTU address and the events that lead to the deaths of 391 american military since our president declared an end to the war in iraq.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]I am not John Kerry and I approve this ad.</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 10:46 AM

isn't it odd that michael moore is criticized to no end by people who are staunch supporters of the president? if we accept the premise that moore stretches the truth and even lies, then i think we also have to accept the premise that dubya and company stretch the truth and have lied. now, who do you think should have more responsibility for telling the truth and leveling with the american people -- our president or some wacko partisan movie maker? who should pay a higher price for lying and distorting the truth? these two individuals should not even be compared, yet they almost seem like birds of a feather. that's incredibly sad.<br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 10:55 AM

IMO, the truth was the first casualty of the iraqi war. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]I am not John Kerry and I approve this ad.</font color=red>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 11:11 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>who should pay a higher price for lying and distorting the truth?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I guess it depends on the subject the president is lying about. Some lies are a-ok and other are not. Sometimes a president can outright lie, get caught and pay no price.<br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: nutty

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 11:31 AM

blow job or nuclear weapons(immanent threat)... which one is a bigger lie?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 11:45 AM

I'm just saying, with 550,000 boots on the ground in 1991, we could've moved on Iraq's oil fields and that would've been that. <br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:01 PM

So far from this thread here's a clarification of things the President DIDN'T say...<br>1) Iraq had taken possession of yellowcake uranium (in the SOTU speech)<br>2) Iraq has possesion on Nu-Clear weapons.<br>3) Iraq is an imminent threat.<br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:19 PM

He didn't say those three things? Precisely those words? What semantical argument would you give to not translate the following from the SOTU into exactly those statements?<br><br>The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.<br><br>It turned out that Saddam clearly did not have anything to hide. But Bush, hiding behind semantics, clearly does have something to hide. That fact that his State of The Union Address was propaganda of the worst kind. It was propaganda that obviously worked.<br><br>He also said in the same speech that "we go to war reluctantly." What kind of horse patootie is that? There was no reluctance on his part.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:20 PM

Dean, the president attributed said this:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.<p><hr></blockquote><p>even though he credited this to the british gov't, he knew this was false because he had sent ambassador wilson to africa to check it out and wilson told him there was no evidence this was true (moreover, the ambassador there also had already debunked the story). rather than accept out intelligence, dubya used someone else's forged document to appeal to the american people. that's very misleading.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What I Didn't Find in Africa<br><br>by Joseph C. Wilson 4th<br><br>Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?<br><br>Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.<br><br>For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.<br><br>It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.<br><br>In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.<br><br>After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.<br><br>In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.<br><br>The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.<br><br>I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.<br><br>Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.<br><br>(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)<br><br>Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.<br><br>Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.<br><br>I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.<br><br>Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.<br><br>The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.<br><br>Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.<br><br>The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.<br><br>I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.<br><br>But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/">from the ny times</a><br><br>and, the high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production was also shown to be false. and, this was known by at least october of 2002 -- well, before the SOTU. <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33682">a gazillion sources on google</a><br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:22 PM

a lot like, "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is." and, oooh boy did some people hate that one. <br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:25 PM

And that would've been that? <br><br>What would have been what exactly? Would 550,000 troops made a difference? Would we not be in the same exact mess we are in now except ten years earlier? What would be the difference? Those troops and the flag of democracy could be planted cleanly into the soil of Iraq where it would blossom and spread like a weed into the entire middle east?<br><br>If you think 550K troops would change night into day why are you not urging your President to send additional troops? Why isn't he? Do you know something he doesn't? You should let him know because it would really help out right now.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:37 PM

Imminent threat? Immediate threat? <br><br><br><embed src="http://weinertlab.kicks-ass.org/~hunter/test/rumsfeld_facethenation.mov" autoplay="false" width="400" height="285"></embed><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:40 PM

The "is" rational of Clinton's I never thought was a really good one. But I always thought that his explanation that a blow job was not "sexual relations" was much dumber and had a much better ridicule factor. Lewis Black does a good number on it. But maybe the conservatives let that one pass because it might have dawned on everyone that we were hijacking the governmental process so we could hunt down evil recipients of blow jobs. A witch hunt led by Ken Starr that 40 million dollars later ended with nothing but a blow job and a stained dress. So we put the President under oath and asked him. This is where I think Clinton showed what a wimp he was. He should have said, "none of your fscking business you slimy little twerps". But he didn't. So now four years later we have to listen to this endless cacophony of radio personalities who never got a blow job unless they paid for it call Clinton scum.<br><br>I think they're just jealous. Or they still haven't ever had one and still don't know what they're missing. Maybe we should come up with a better bumper sticker. "Give a NeoCon a Blow Job and Change the World".<br>Couldn't hurt.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 01:53 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> One problem with that is, we could get the oil cheaper when Iraq was ruled by Saddam and had sanctions.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Why do you think the war had anything to do with access to cheap oil? I'm not in the oil business but if I was I would certainly not want to have "cheap" oil. You don't make money transacting a business with cheap things, you make more money dealing in expensive things. Just ask Apple. <br><br>And it's not owning the oil. You don't get rich owning something. You get rich making a transaction. The more transactions the better. If you repair and lay the oil pipe, ship it through those pipes, each time you touch it money drops in your pocket. <br><br>Did anyone possibly think that oil businessmen want you to have cheap gasoline to pump in your car? Not a good strategy as Dell computer is finding out. If you cheap something down to no profit margin then one little mistake and the profit margins are gone completely. You sell something your absolute main goal is took keep profit margins as high as the buyer can stand. We got that at the gas pump now.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm not in the oil business but if I was I would certainly not want to have "cheap" oil.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Then it's obvious you're not in any business. The oil industry is a middle man, they'd want the cheapest oil possible to make the most profits. Just as we in the corrugated industry want the cheapest paper prices possible, the less we pay for paper the more profit we make. The paper companies are simply a vendor... just as Saudi Arabia is a vendor to the oil companies. Prices obviously fluctuate in any business, but when you're manufacturing something, be it corrugated paper or gasoline, the less you pay for your raw materials, the better off you are. We squeeze our supply vendors, just as the oil companies squeeze theirs.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you repair and lay the oil pipe, ship it through those pipes, each time you touch it money drops in your pocket. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Really? How is an oil company that spends 50 billion dollars on a pipe making profit? They're 50 billion in the hole. That's 50 billion dollars in sales they have to make just to break even before they can even think of making a profit. The oil company that's simply buying that oil off the end of the pipe without paying for the infrastructure is the one that's making the profits. Yes, they're paying a bit more... but they've got a huge head start.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:30 PM

I'm saying we had 550,000 troops on the ground in 1991 and could've very easily taken oil then. Who would've stopped us?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you think 550K troops would change night into day why are you not urging your President to send additional troops?<p><hr></blockquote><p>And this is exactly where I'm critical of the administration right now. I DO think we should ramp up troop levels. I DO think we should send as many troops, NOW, to take out these terrorists. On this point I absolutely agree with you. We need more troops and we need them yesterday.<br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:38 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>isn't it odd that michael moore is criticized to no end by people who are staunch supporters of the president?<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>No, but I think it's odd how MM portrays himself in this holier than thou kind of way when he's just a stupid white guy. If he was truly better than Bush, he wouldn't have to edit his films to rearrange events to make them say what he wants, would he?<br><br>*EVERYONE* lies, and anyone that says they don't are going to spend their eternity in hell because we've all lied at some point. I think it's fair to say each and every one of us lies to some extent every day. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:39 PM

I do run a business. In the black for the last 15 years while most of my competitors with more resources have gone belly up. <br><br>But you aren't talking about the right businessmen. The middleman doesn't care what the price of the commodity is. Just so that she can buy low, touch it and sell higher. What deals are being cut right now in Iraq I do not know and you don't either but the price is fluctuating and the guy with the guns and the controls (Haliburton) makes money on all the fluctuations.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Really? How is an oil company that spends 50 billion dollars on a pipe making profit <p><hr></blockquote><p> Is this a trick question? Because your answer is wrong. You make money by selling the pipe! That's 50 billion in your pocket. Or even better, lease the pipe, make them pay for the install, then take a cut of the oil that flows through the pipe three times, not just once but over and over again. As I said before. Don't buy the oil. That's not where the money is. just touch it. With a leased pipe for starters.<br><br>I would think that corrugated card board is not subject to volatile price fluctuations. At least not ones governed by war. So the speculative market on card board would be a tad sleepy compared to oil or pork bellies. The fluctuation is the key that brings in the players. That is where you make all the cash. Price of oil getting too low. Have a war in the middle east. Best thing for business. Because you make all your money over uncertainty. <br><br>As a maker of cardboard, wouldn't you like it if there was a lot of uncertainty in the product you made? Maybe some of your competitors got a missile sent down their smoke stack? Maybe a forest goes up in flames right after you lock in a cheap price for pulp? You make a decent wage off of smooth waters. Less ulcers that way. But you make a killing when the market is all topsy turvy and you have some inside information. Good information like exactly when a war is going to start.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:47 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I DO think we should send as many troops, NOW, to take out these terrorists. On this point I absolutely agree with you. We need more troops and we need them yesterday.<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> You are mistaken that I think that way. We are not fighting a few terrorists. We are fighting the people of Iraq. And we will have to bring in enough troops to exterminate a whole civilization and that never works. Haven't you seen the spontaneous cheering when one of our humvees go up in flames?Do you think terrorists are so organized they can whip up a nice little rally? No, it is the common Iraqi on the street telling us to get the hell out. We should listen. We should apologize for coming on the way out.<br><br>Yeah I know the response, "But we're not as bad as Saddam!! How dare you speak like that." Yeah, great moral yardstick the Republican Senator had when he said that. We settle for, "Not as bad as Saddam". Great. Something to be proud of.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 02:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Because you make all your money over uncertainty.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That, is absolutely correct.<br><br>If you look at gas prices over the past month (record highs), they supposedly skyrocketed on fears over supplies. The supplies are fine, in fact the Saudis are supposedly pumping at near capacity. Refineries are limited, but they've been limited for decades, so why is gas still so high and where is all this new profit (over the past six months) going?? Not to the sellers of crude oil, not to the gas station where you buy the gas. The middlemen love this fear and demand game, its like an instant cash bonus.<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 03:19 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>*EVERYONE* lies, and anyone that says they don't are going to spend their eternity in hell because we've all lied at some point. I think it's fair to say each and every one of us lies to some extent every day.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sgt. Baxter: this is quite a weird statement IMO. it's obviously not true, i don't even want to go into arguing with it.<br><br>however this reveals a lot about you. i hope you don't mind me being personal. i think you might have a problem. i think you feel guilty of lies and you think you can make it good by admitting your wrongdoing. at the same time, you want to believe that people around you are also doing the same thing, so your sin is not that big. i'm not a therapist, so i might be completely wrong. just a guess.<br><br>going back to the subject, you are defending Bush&Co by saying, yes they lied, but everyone does. this is amazing. your fanaticism for Bush goes to irrational extents. is there anything Bush would do, that it would turn your support for him down? obviously lies and killing isn't enough.<br><br>sorry for being raw, take it as my weakness. i hope you not gonna shoot me down like your sig pic suggests :)<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 04:00 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> this is quite a weird statement IMO. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Yes, it is. A weird outgrowth of this I think is the idea of "original sin". "shoot not even born yet and nailed with a sin already. Might as well sin. Hope I can be born again or repent or say penance orsomething right before the bus runs me over."<br><br>With my luck I'l see the bus coming and scream, "Jesus Fsking Christ I'm gonna die" and my ticket to the fire and brimstone gala will be punched. Sheet just looked and nine of ten are punched already! At least I'll get a free coffee!<br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 06:45 PM

[censored] fabrications to support your effort. Such an action has to be LEGITIMATE and have the support of interational cooperation through the UN. Most of the rest of the world could see the error in that, they did not drink the Kool-Aid. Haven't see the movie yet, but I am glad to see it in theaters now. I hope it smoulders under Bush's ass for a while.<br><br>
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 08:18 PM

You can't see the movie here in Yuma, Arizona! We have three theaters.<br><br>Even the casino-funded Main Street Cinema isn't showing it but they did put a poll on their web-site asking if their patrons want to see it. Yeeesh!<br><br>The vote is currently 3272 for YES and 2370 for NO.<br><br>I'll be glad when Harkin Theater opens their new 14-screen movie house in November. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]I am not John Kerry and I approve this ad.</font color=red>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 09:47 PM

What I have seen is the constant, one-sided negative reporting by our news media. Bad news (reporting) in Iraq means bad news for the President in November. The media gives us our daily Abu Grahib update but, by and large, fails to report on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:<br><br>Saddam<br><br>The people of Iraq are glad we have ended the regime of Saddam Hussein. They are glad we're there. <br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 10:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The media gives us our daily Abu Grahib update but, by and large, fails to report on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>from your link:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>says most of the dead were killed in 1991, after the failed uprising against Saddam Hussein.<p><hr></blockquote><p>so, saddam killed thousands of people who were fighting to overthrow him. hmmm. what did you expect him to do? the saddest part of this uprising from our perspective is that bush I led these insurgents to believe that we'd support their uprising and we instead watched them die during their efforts. where was bush I and why did we sit idly by? great point matt. why isn't the media talking about these deaths from 13 years ago? probably because the conservative media thinks the story is...oh, 13 years old. further, the conservative media doesn't want us to talk about how we urged the insurgents on back then and watched them get slaughtered.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Baath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place.<p><hr></blockquote><p>helping those people might have meant a lot more americans dying because we knew saddam had WMD back then in the form of the chemical weapons that we'd provided him in the 80s. Michael Moore does a good job of showing dubya and other high level officials talking in early 2001 about how well saddam was contained and that he didn't have any WMD. amazing how quickly they changed their minds to fit their agenda.<br><br>and, is fox news telling you that the people are glad we're in iraq? i wouldn't doubt it, but the survey that our own government commissioned revealed that the vast majority of iraqis want us gone immediately and aren't glad we're there.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The poll, conducted in May and obtained by Reuters on Thursday, found only 10 percent of Iraqis had confidence in U.S.-led forces -- down from 28 percent in January. Fifty-five percent would feel safer if those troops left Iraq (news - web sites) immediately.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040617/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc_2">link</a> (we just discussed this last week, i believe)<br><br>----<br>smile!
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/25/04 10:44 PM

How about these for reasons to attack Iraq.<br><br>They violated most of the UN resolutions against them following the gulf war, any one of which should have triggered military action.<br><br>They activly worked to decieve UN weapons inspectors, and then threw them out.<br><br>When Saddam's son in law, who was in charge of the WMD program, defected he spilled his guts to western intelligence agencies about the on going WMD program, and the lengths they had gone to in hiding it from UN inspectors. (Source was a discovery times channel documentary sorry no link) Saddam had him assasinated.<br><br>Iraq was shooting at US and other aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones almost every day for close to 12 years.<br><br>Iraq tried to assasinate a former President of the United States. That by it's self is an act of war in anybody's book, and should be an outrage to every American regardless of party.<br><br>Saddam made public statements that he wanted to destroy the US.<br><br>We were warned by the Russians that Iraq was actively working on a plan to attack the US.<br><br>Iraq had been supporting terrorists in Isreal by giving cash to the families of bombers.<br><br>Iraq had been in contact with Al Qaeda since 1990.<br><br>That's just the information that has been published. Now we could have taken a bury our head in the sand approach to Iraq or we could act. Personally I would rather act, than wait for another major attack on this country. I wonder what Moore would have to say if some Iraqi backed terrorist popped a dirty bomb in Hollywood, or dropped some ricin in the LA water supply. <br><br>I have spent the last week training on how to locate people trapped in collapsed buildings, as part of the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue team based here in Memphis. The guys who are teaching us spent two weeks at the Pentagon. We have also been getting lots of WMD training. What I have learned is that we had all better pray it doesn't happen here, and hope that whoever is running the show has the sense to take action to keep it from happening, because if it does it will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 01:54 AM

i support the removal of Saddam. the only problem is Bush didn't say he wants to remove Saddam because he's an evil dictator. he wouldn't have gotten the support and the army to invade, since it's not a good enough reason to be able to go to war. my problem is that they made up reasons and lied about them.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>They violated most of the UN resolutions against them following the gulf war, any one of which should have triggered military action.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the US had been disregarding the UN decisions as well. once the US realized they can't get support from the UN to go to war against Iraq, the US went to war anyway without a resolution.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>They activly worked to decieve UN weapons inspectors, and then threw them out.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that's subjective. Hans Blix, who was the guy in charge wouldn't agree with you. he said he needs more time and that things are going well.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When Saddam's son in law, who was in charge of the WMD program, defected he spilled his guts to western intelligence agencies about the on going WMD program, and the lengths they had gone to in hiding it from UN inspectors. (Source was a discovery times channel documentary sorry no link) Saddam had him assasinated.<p><hr></blockquote><p>this is Saddam's business. besides the WMD program has been discontinued long time back and Bush knew it, but it didn't suit him to say so. now the fact is that WMD's haven't been found!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq was shooting at US and other aircraft patrolling the UN mandated no fly zones almost every day for close to 12 years.<br><br>Iraq tried to assasinate a former President of the United States. That by it's self is an act of war in anybody's book, and should be an outrage to every American regardless of party.<br><br>Saddam made public statements that he wanted to destroy the US.<br><br>We were warned by the Russians that Iraq was actively working on a plan to attack the US.<p><hr></blockquote><p>yes i agree, this is a bad idea.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq had been supporting terrorists in Isreal by giving cash to the families of bombers.<p><hr></blockquote><p>depending where you stand Israel is a terrorist state because it has taken the land of Palestinians and continue to terrorize them until Today or you can say that they suffer from evil Palestinian terrorists. if you ask the people of Middle East they will tell you that the first option is the reality. and they know better, than the people living thousands of miles away.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq had been in contact with Al Qaeda since 1990.<p><hr></blockquote><p>so what? being in contact means nothing. the CIA has been in contact with Al Qaeda too. the point is that the Saddam regime didn't support them, they were actually enemies. Saddam had a secular regime. he made sure Al Qaeda can't operate in the areas of his control. Al Qaeda hated him, they think he is a socialist. but Bush made sure that his communication to the world blurs these issues and his way of putting it was exactly like your sentence. very shallow and in fact the opposite is true what was said.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I have spent the last week training on how to locate people trapped in collapsed buildings, as part of the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue team based here in Memphis. The guys who are teaching us spent two weeks at the Pentagon. We have also been getting lots of WMD training. What I have learned is that we had all better pray it doesn't happen here, and hope that whoever is running the show has the sense to take action to keep it from happening, because if it does it will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine.<p><hr></blockquote><p>this gives a lot of weight to your words and i adore your dedication. we should be all grateful that there are people like you who devote their life to save other people. i really have a big respect for you.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 04:27 AM

One of the most articulate, passionate, intelligent, and balanced exchanges I've ever seen on this topic! You're both dead-on — because you're each at very different, yet relevant, vantage points on this issue. And your comments have homed in on a very disturbing paradox:<br><br>Before we even get to WMD, the U.N. had enough "goods" on Iraq to act decisively, and to put its weight behind the U.S. Why they didn't is a serious problem and totally undermines the organization's credibility and purpose.<br><br>However, the fact that the U.S. admin felt it was necessary to then deceive it's own people and the world at large by grossly distorting information in favor of it's case — call it deadly hyperbole — is also a huge problem. Now the U.S.'s credibility and purpose has been more deeply undermined than that of the UN! Now, had the UN chosen to support the U.S., would that show of force and aggregate resolve caused Iraq to cave without a single boot being placed on the ground? Could the invasion have been executed on a more powerful scale, or better yet, avoided all together?<br><br>The one thing that none of will know for many years — if ever — is whether or not the deception and manipulation will have ultimately been worth it. Look, any war, big or small, is messy and horrific — for the world and for the individual — and anyone expecting the smell of roses in less than a year is in denial. But the current climate in Iraq and the Middle East is anything but promising.<br><br>Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy said, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". Well, boys & girls, what goes around comes around. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 05:10 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy said, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". Well, boys & girls, what goes around comes around. <p><hr></blockquote><p> The CIA did an analysis prior to the invasion of Iraq and came up with the same conclusion. That attacking Iraq would create more terrorists and increase terrorist activity against the United States for years to come.<br><br>It seems that the CIA was correct. We'll have to watch how the cards are played out to find out how right they were.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 05:44 AM

For a very long time I put my support behind this admin. Not because I voted it in — quite the contrary — but because I believed they must know things that we, as private citizens, can not. Now it seems that they didn't really know that much either (at least what they knew originated from bad sources), but inflated and twisted much of it and even fabricated some to fit an agenda.<br><br>I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach now. I just don't know who to believe. Not Moore — that's for sure, because he's just as good at manipulation as the next guy. What I fear is that even if/when the whole truth does emerge, it will have been too late, and at too high a cost.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 06:11 AM

We fell for that, "they know more than we as private citizens" with Nixon and the Vietnam war. We shouldn't fall for it again.<br><br>As for Moore, I think I will just go check out the movie. I think Moore realizes that in this one he cannot stretch the facts to bludgeon us with his points. I have a feeling he isn't going to have one frame out of order. Too important to get the truth out there. Because you're right, The truth on these issues coming to late and we will pay an extremely high cost. I'm afraid we are already into our mortgage. There's always refinancing opportunities come Nov 2.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 07:28 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In reply to:<br><br>Iraq had been supporting terrorists in Isreal by giving cash to the families of bombers.<br><br>depending where you stand Israel is a terrorist state because it has taken the land of Palestinians and continue to terrorize them until Today or you can say that they suffer from evil Palestinian terrorists. if you ask the people of Middle East they will tell you that the first option is the reality. and they know better, than the people living thousands of miles away.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Does the Muslim community really see Israeli involvement <br>(...being perceived as a 'Terrorist State') as a factor that <br>may be contributing to the on going war?<br><br>I hadn't thought much about it until now...<br> <br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 07:35 AM

<br>AGREED!<br><br>The "All-Knowing-Good-Father" image is a dream of the past.<br>I've come to see that these "Good Fathers" can be REAL 'Mothers'! <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 09:56 AM

That's a very well worded reply.<br><br><br>
Posted by: iRock

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 09:58 AM

I agree trog. Especially the first paragraph of iVan's.<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Kudos to both of you! - 06/26/04 10:02 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach now. I just don't know who to believe.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that very well describes many people nowadays. including me.<br><br>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:07 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Does the Muslim community really see Israeli involvement <br>(...being perceived as a 'Terrorist State') as a factor that <br>may be contributing to the on going war?<p><hr></blockquote><p>i didn't quite understand what you are asking. if you are asking that if the Israeli conflict affects the situation in Iraq. i don't think so. Some Iraqis have their own reasons to resist "occupation".<br><br>if you meant to ask if the issue of Palestine/Israel has anything to do with the global rise of terrorism than the answer is yes. Bin Laden & Co is very pissed about the fact that the US is supporting Israel in the Middle East. it's at least one of the main three reasons Al Qaeda has such big support.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:14 AM

I meant the latter. <br><br>If this is an issue, why is it not coming to the attention of the American people?<br>as far as I know, it has never been brought up at all.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:25 AM

well, of course not. everyone believes that terrorism exist because as Bush said, these people don't like our way of life and want to destroy our democracy. they don't want to do that! they don't give a crap.<br><br>they are pissed because of Israel, they are pissed because the US has a base and military presence all over the Middle East (especially Saudi), they are pissed because the US enforces their rules on the free trade (to keep the Oil price down for example), they are pissed because the US run over Afghanistan and Iraq. they are not pissed because we are Christian or because we have beaches with girls in bikini. that's the propaganda. if the current administration would solve these key issues and would stick to it for a year or two, Al Qaeda would fall apart. of course i don't have the slightest idea how to solve these issues and where would it lead...<br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:32 AM

if the current administration would solve these key issues and would stick to it for a year or two, Al Qaeda would fall apart. <br><br>I doubt that..I'm sure the terrorists would find something else to declare war against.<br><br>I'm just curious as to where you get your information. Did you interview any terrorists? Did you read this somewhere? What makes the information that you have definitive?<br><br>Personally I believe that people like Osama and the likes have other issues. All what you mention is just excuses.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:39 AM

For a while now, it's been seeming like there's some hidden agenda<br>to keep the tension ramping up, rather than smoothing things over.<br><br>So many things just don't seem to add up, or make sense.<br><br>For instance, some one here pointed out just after the Berg Beheading,<br>that Al Queida had us bent over a moral barrel with the prison scandal...<br><br>...what would they have to gain by blowing that moral victory by turning<br>the tide of world resentment against themselves at that pivotal moment.<br><br><br>It seems to make sense to at least attempt to understand the other side <br>of the story. I suppose some research may be in order.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:45 AM

Maybe it's in all the newspapers, everyday<br>the same as what goes on here is written everywhere<br><br>...and...<br>That could go for both sides I think.<br><br>perhaps...<br>we might not be as different as we are being led to believe<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:51 AM

heh...papers..yeah, the bastion of the truth [rolleyes]<br><br>I rarely believe everything the local paper here prints. They like to play up the sensationalism but no substance. <br><br>It could go for both sides? What sides? Me and him or the U.S. and the Middle East?<br><br>And again...when you say "we" in the last sentence of your post, do you mean us here on MM or the world in general?<br><br>I don't think we, as in the people of the world, are different. Sure, some things we may do differently, but I believe that the core things are all the same. <br><br>Who is leading you to believe differently?<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 10:53 AM

The question of Israel is sooooo complicated that it's really not possible to think about it briefly. Still, I think it's important to distinguish between the fact of Israel--I mean that it exists--and the policies that the Likud party has deployed since Mr. Netanyahu was PM. The two things are not the same any more than any administration is the same as the nation it leads. And the same thing applies to the Palestinians as opposed to their leadership. I'm sure, positive in fact, that the Palestinians are easy to recruit for terrorism because of the fact that they are an occupied people. However, I'm also sure that with leadership that would seek a real solution to the problems of occupation the Palestinians would be more than happy to be at peace. I don't know enough about Palestinian politics to know if there's such leadership available. But until a miracle happens and both the Palestinians and the Israelis choose leadership that's willing to get beyond the current impasse, I don't see any solution to the continuing violence in Israel.<br><br>And I think Ivan is right that the instability in Israel/Palestine, in which the US is perceived to and does in fact side with Israel, makes the US a potential target for hatred in the larger Arab and Islamic world. I also think that our need for petroleum makes the US willy nilly a (neo-)imperial country, disguise it how we may. Couple that with the way the US is seen in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and we've got serious problems in how we're perceived.<br><br>As I say, I think the solution to the Israel/Palestine issue has to come from inside those two nations--with whatever pushing and encouraging we and the rest of the world can give. The dependency on oil is a different issue, though. I really don't understand why there is not a more dedicated, more focused, more concerted effort to develop fuel sources that will reduce the importance of oil in the world. And its not just oil as a source of energy that we need to do something about. I mean, oil is used for other things, like the plastic bags we get when we go shopping at the supermarket, the plastic of the keyboard that I'm typing this on, the frame for my monitor, the bulk of my G4 tower, printer, scanner, TV set, etc., etc. We absolutely have to find some alternative to oil-based materials as well.<br><br>And I don't think that it's just a matter of the current inernational political situation that compels us to do the research necesary to change the dependency on oil. I have no idea how long it will be before we run out of oil. But there's no doubt that eventually we will in fact run out of oil. Think of that prospect! If you think things are bad now, just you wait 'Enry 'Iggins!<br><br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 11:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We absolutely have to find some alternative to oil-based materials as well.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>I can see it now. Cast iron iPods.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 12:07 PM

You use a Gas Powered iPod? <br><br>j/k<br>( know you mean "plastics")<br>...but a solar powered/battery hybrid<br>would be an interesting concept.<br><br>Hey, breaking the fossil fuel bond<br>ain't such a bad idea, you know. <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 01:32 PM

I found this using Google News:<br><br><h2>Suicide Nation</h2> <br><br>one Palestinian recently wrote in response to Ben-Gurion's famous quip on expelling Arabs, ('The old will die and the young will forget,'): 'The old are dying, and the young are dying too, but no one is forgetting.' <br><br>Zionism's 'original sin', as one Israeli historian calls his nation's original 1948 expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians and massacre of hundreds more, is the basis of both Israel's existence and the continued non-existence of the more than four million caged, dispossessed Palestinian victims who demand justice. <br><br>Endurance means, first and foremost, staying in place. Its greed for land and settlements partially hindered by Palestinian presence, Israel has responded by robbing the natives of any legal, political or human rights, and has constructed what Israeli anti-occupation activist Jeff Halper calls a 'matrix of control' to stifle their lives, including settlements, military checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews, embargoes, and detention centers. But merely living in this hellish scenario constitutes a victory against the root logic of Israeli colonialism, which is to 'purify' the land by removing its indigenous population. <br><br>Resistance, on the other hand, refers to active measures against the occupation. In the first Intifada and in the beginning of the second Intifada this almost always took the form of unarmed protest or stone-throwing, but Israel responded by mowing down hundreds of Palestinians with machine guns and breaking their bones, bringing in bulldozers to demolish homes and tanks to enforce even harsher living conditions. Their restraint further rewarded with an atrocious death ratio of 25:1, Palestinians tired of digging rows of graves for their children and patriots just to be patted on the head by a few polite Western liberals, and turned to armed struggle, the most extreme form of which now manifests itself in suicide bombing. <br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Sharon's 'solution' to the country's dual crisis is in the tradition of Revisionist Zionism, founded in the 1920's by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Italian fascism who wrote honestly but with the aspirations of a conquistador-cowboy that Palestinians 'look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie.' One disciple of this doctrine was Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan, who admitted, 'There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population,' and advocated the following method to expand this theft: '[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers.' <br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>But it turns out that Israel is now neither safe nor far from the reach of its victims, and that its main strategy for addressing its problem involves exposing all its citizens to injury and death just to whip up enough self-righteousness and hate to repeat the cycle all over again until the conditions are ripe for mass expulsion. In this sense Israel is akin to a guilt-ridden wife beater; acutely aware of its own immorality, it provokes its victim into some futile kind of resistance to inspire itself with enough hatred to justify continuing the beating, awaiting all-out world war to finish the job without eliciting much protest.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 01:40 PM

...and this... <br><br><h2>Israeli Torture Template</h2><br><br>Written by Wayne Madsen, a Washington, DC-based investigative <br>journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency <br>(NSA) during the Reagan administration.<br><br>Wherein Mr Madsen claims that the "mysterious sub-contractors" that<br>keep getting mentioned in connection with the Prison Torture Scandal<br>were indeed sanctioned by the top level of the Bush administration, <br>...and goes on to say how they were trained. <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: LarryB

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 05:42 PM

Hey guys, Boothby here. I'm on the machine at work and didn't have my password handy. Ivan I appreciate the nice words, thanks. I only brought the job into it because the information being put out gives me a different view..............and quite frankly it scares the $hit out of me.<br><br>Ivan the whole WMD thing is very much a question in my mind. I recently saw a very good documentary on Discovery Times, where they talked about the Son in Law and WMD. What they said was that in the mid 90's ( I can't remember the year) the son in law defected. What he told the west was that the WMD program was alive and well, and that one of his duties had been to hide the stuff from the UN inspectors. In my mind the real question is where did all the stuff go. I honestly believe he shipped it out of the country before we invaded. Just because they didn't find anything there doesn't mean it didn't exist...........Of course it doesn't mean it did either.<br><br>As for the Isreal thing, I think that Isreal has really screwed things up with the way they have handled the Palestinians. Having said that I believe that two wrongs don't make things right. Terrorist bomb attacks are wrong, and Saddams second hand support of that was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destabilize an already screwed up situation. If he was willing to support terrorists in one arena then it's not hard to believe he would support them in another. Especially when you consider everything else he had done. That made him public enemy #1. Under President Clinton we tried the whole sanctions thing. We tried limited, proportional responces. We tried not to stir the hornets nest. He even passed on the chance to get Bin Lauden (why I don't know). We saw the result of that kind of policy. Now we have a President who is taking direct action. I know for many people around the world it doesn't look good, but then again they weren't attacked. 9/11 was the worst attack in US history. 3000 of our citizens were killed. The last time something came close was Pearl Harbor. When that happened we went to war against 3 countries, and dropped two nuclear weapons on one of them. Our responce today is tame by comparison. Saddam was a looming threat to this country and we had two choices. We could wait for the next attack or we could go after the threats. I know the rest of the world doesn't like it........I sure hate it for them.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 07:37 PM

Still on the NewsStand:<br><br><h2>Israel's Secret Prison</h2><br><br><h1>Secrets Of Unit 1391</h1><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/26/04 07:51 PM

An earlier breaking story:<br><br><h2>Facility 1391: “Israel’s” secret prison</h2><br><br>I'm starting to understand why they'd be mad at us by association.<br>It didn't take turning over too many rocks to find these stories either.<br><br>...maybe this can be Michael Moore's next movie.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 04:30 AM

<br>Hope for the Future: <br><br><h3>CIA Halts Use of Harsh Interrogation Ploys</h3><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 06:40 AM

i can't claim i'm certain about what i say. it's just an opinion based on others opinion that i trust and sometimes my own conclusions on information that i get.<br><br>i think it's not important how correct our view, what's important that we DO talk about it, because the only way we can be responsible citizens of a democracy that cast a smart vote if we DO deal with these issues and we DO analize the situation. the smarter we get the better the democracy works. the problem with the current democracies i believe is that people vote for the most popular guy and they don't have very deep decisions. they just go with the flow, which means we don't really have democracy, people are manipulated the way the top few wants their voters to vote. you know what i mean :)<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 07:41 AM

Oh I understand competely. This election is going to be very difficult for me. There are so many issues besides the war. In some ways I like Kerry, and our union has endorsed him because of the support he gives to firefighters, but there are other issues were I strongly oppose him. The same goes for Bush. I think politics has gotten to the point where it's not so much picking the best candidate, but picking the lesser of two evils.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 07:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I think politics has gotten to the point where it's not so much picking the best candidate, but picking the lesser of two evils. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Call me a raving lunatic but I really hate this ever popular mantra said of today's politicians. It is as if politicians come from some part of Hades far from the place where us normal people come from.<br><br>But politicians are people. With as much good and bad intentions as the rest of us. Even Bush likely believed his good intention of planting Democracy in the middle east even though that intention had the chance of a snowball in said Hades. And we select these politicians. Not a perfect selection process to be sure but not all that bad either. <br><br>Sometimes in Presidential elections in can be said that there is not much difference. Clinton and Dole moved to the center so much they could have been twins. But this year we have not the lesser of two anythings. We have two diametrically opposed views on the way this country should move forward. If you are on the fence and your union decision is selecting which way you should vote then you should read up on what these two men really represent. Not today's hype but what they have done with their lives and what they intend to do with yours while leading this country.<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:34 AM

That's actually the point. I'm not a single issue voter. There are things I like about both candidates, and things about both that I hate. As for the Union, they are going to endorse whoever they think will be the best for firefighters. They have a very narrow point of view. All the information we get from the International is very clear about this, and they are also clear that they expect us look at all the issues and vote for who WE feel is best. <br><br><br>[color:blue]"In making the tough decisions about who to support in political election, the IAFF Executive Board focuses solely on a candidate's record of support on the fire service and employment issues. Issues of school prayer, right to life, the environment, or any other issues that are of great concer to the citizens of this country, including professional fire fighters, are not taken into consideration. Our job is to represent the needs of fire fighters and paramedics-------period."<br><br>"We trust our membership to evaluate all the issues and make your decisions on a candidate's worthiness. We respect your right to form your own opinion about who to support for President of the United States, and the issues on which you base that support."</font color=blue><br><br>General President Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:36 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think politics has gotten to the point where it's not so much picking the best candidate, but picking the lesser of two evils.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that's exactly true. the problem is that there are better candidates for your presidency than Bush or Kerry, but they don't get the chance to even run for the presidence. there is an illegal movie called the Spin, that demonstrates this fact. you have to watch it to loose all hope of fair democracy :)<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iraszl on 06/27/04 11:38 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:50 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The problem is that there are better candidates for your presidency than Bush or Kerry. <p><hr></blockquote><p> When this is not the case I will want to be dead and long gone. Of course there are better people. Only in a perfect world would we pick the two most perfect candidates for the Presidency. Politics is just like life. It's messy, imperfect and we make choices every day which are good and bad which we have to live with.<br><br>We can all prattle on about the busted selection process or we can fix it. We can read the history books and discover how third parties do not fall out of the sky but are usually pulled out of the ashes of one of the failed in the two party system. We may well be living through a time like that right now. I would put money on the Republican party exploding into flames soon as it finds out how hard it is to keep people who make less then the top 3 percentile in wages continuing to vote for a party that supports only the wishes of the top 3 percent.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:56 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you have to watch it to loose all hope of fair democracy :)<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>The question is, Ivan, how do you define "fair". This country has splintered into so many different special interest groups, that the idea of fair has become blurred. Many people in this country believe that fair means that they get what they want, and to hell with everyone else. Of course the politicians recoginze this, and they pander to one group or the other, depending on which way the wind is blowing that day. Or how much cash is flowing! The problem really isnt' with the politicians, they just react. The problem is when people start putting their personal special interests ahead of what is good for the country as a whole. In my opinion a fair democracy means everyone gets the chance to be heard. It doesn't mean you will get what you want.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: iraszl

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:58 AM

what you are saying is correct, but it doesn't mean we don't have to seek perfection. we need to identify such problems and try to work towards a better system. we shouldn't just say that's life and move on.<br><br>i want to see a candidate who says, part of my program is to make the election process more transparent so that more people with good ideas and good abilities can get into power.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 09:05 AM

My sentiments exactly. The day one is satisfied with the status quo is the day you do not have a pulse. (Or we have morphed into a Republican.)<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 09:06 AM

It sure would be nice!<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 09:07 AM

Be nice now.....I'm a republican!<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 09:39 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Be nice now.....I'm a republican!<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> We all have our faults.<br><br>I was at the Science Museum yesterday and there was an exhibit on "Risk". Long, short, I was wearing a fire fighters coat. This thing was great. Comfy built to withstand god knows what and very well made down to the cuffs which slip over your thumb to keep the embers out.<br><br>Is there a place to pick up a used one of these? I bet they cost some bucks new. For chain sawing in the middle of the winter sort of stuff the coat would come in handy.<br><br>PS: definition of risk: Taking a birthday party of four eight year old girls to the Boston Museum of Science and you are the only adult. I wish I had a tranquilizer gun but actually they were very well behaved. I had "get this party started by Pink" on the iPOD. (All versions including the house mix. We rocked down the Mass Pike.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 09:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>PS: definition of risk: Taking a birthday party of four eight year old girls to the Boston Museum of Science and you are the only adult. I wish I had a tranquilizer gun but actually they were very well behaved. I had "get this party started by Pink" on the iPOD. (All versions including the house mix. We rocked down the Mass Pike.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>LMAO! Now THAT takes guts. I don't know where you could get a used coat but if you have the $$$ Link<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 10:07 AM

Well, its officially hit the big time, its on Slashdot <br><br>A very weird thing to see a movie discussed there, but I think the idea is that there is so much interaction between computer technology and politics now (RIAA, Bush and Microsoft connection, etc.) that it deserves discussing the subject matter. Of course, the majority of the thousands of replies are from well educated computer scientists, so they're mostly liberal.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 10:12 AM

LOL. Been there. Done that. Took my youngest and 4 of her pals (a few years ago when she was also 8) to the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. They had their strategy down pat. In rotation, one would distract me while the others would attempt stunts like climbing the dinosaurs, pocketing a moon rock, throwing gummie bears into the mouth of the big hanging whale... <br><br>Ever since that day, I have to wear a disguise when I go there. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 11:01 AM

If the coat withstood everything,<br>why do I hear bagpipes playing across the street so often?<br>(before I'm accused of being "cryptic" again, I live across<br>the street from the town graveyard.)<br><br>it IS freakin' popularity contest, ...and a festival of liars as well.<br><br>'Who shaved, and which side the candidate parts his hair! <br>who doesn't smile enough, and who's ears are too big.' <br><h1>WTF????</h1><br>So why do we stand still for it?<br>why ARN'T we voting for the BEST, instead of the "Least-Worst"?<br><br>Don't you see how truly sick this situation has become?<br><br>This isn't our GrandParents World.... this is TODAY.<br><br>Just as the 'world has grown smaller' by the advent of airtravel<br>...and the chances of plagues increased 100 fold as a result...<br><br>THE HARM THAT CAN BE DONE IN A FRACTION OF THE TIME IT <br>ONCE TOOK HAS BECOME A HUGE CONSIDERATION DUE TO PRESENT<br>TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING (but not limited to) THE COMPUTER.<br><br>While we're indeed personally concerned with the issues that<br>effect our personal well being (in our fireman's case, an actual<br>matter of immediate life and death) it is every bit as dire to <br>the rest of us that have to live on this planet ruled by profit-based <br>thieves & liars that are cutting up & selling off our heritage to their <br>CRONIES in upper corporate management positions, that see us a <br>NOTHING more than replaceable parts in their money making machines, <br>and consumers of whatever garbage they crap out on us to kill us<br>to pad their profit margin.<br><br>I resent being called a liberal by people that don't bother to see<br>that I don't endorse EITHER candidate. HOW DARE YOU LABEL ME!<br><br>All I want to do is LIVE. But I can't. I'm dying quickly from the<br>crap spewed out by a chemical plant that was finally closed,<br>then allowed to reopen elsewhere... poisoning another generation <br>of kids, because the New Laws under the Present Administration ruled<br>that Corporations are allowed to pay fines, that are less expensive<br>than cleaning up their act.<br><br>I want my best friend back that had his tongue cut out & still<br>died last year from spraying pesticides in the service of the people <br>of my state government.<br>I want my new best friend not to die because the sky above him <br>no longer offers him any protection, as he toils in the sun growing<br>food for our table.<br>I want food grown that nourishes human beings, rather than being <br>turned into poisons for profit by the new food corporations that<br>are about to take over the world, even as we finally begin to<br>see the wisdom of phasing out fossil fuels.<br><br>"The lesser of two evils" just won't do any more.<br>We are coming to a time where we are on the knifes edge between <br>a decent existence, & being ground beneath the wheels of the huge<br>profit merchants that sees us as no more than graphical statistics. <br> <br>Please realize, that the choice we make, no longer effects us personally,<br>and not even the entire United States.<br>This Time It's For All the Marbles. The demographics have changed in <br>such a way, that he who controls the World Finances, CONTROLS The WORLD.<br><br>Lesser of two evils? Pretty scary.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 11:12 AM

This is the first time a thread has turned to what we hope for.<br>and what we expect, and why we make the choices we make.<br><br>DON'T STOP NOW!<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 01:53 PM

I've been more or less aware of politics since the Johnson-Goldwater election of '64 and I have to say it has always been the case that elections come down to the lesser of two evils. It's the nature of electoral politics, I guess, especially if you're not a single-issue voter, as you say, Larry.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 02:36 PM

My second favorite museum is the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. I had not been in ages and went this past fall. What a makeover with the Hall of Oceans. I could spend a week in the rooms that have all the species laid out on the family tree. Going there as a kid I remember being bored looking at the stuffed animals behind smudged glass. The glass and the dioramas have been impressively redone.<br><br>My first favorite is across the park. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has more French Impressionism paintings then the d 'Orsay in Paris. Probably 3 times more. <br><br>I love Boston but the museums and the restaurants in Manhattan remind me why New Yorkers think Boston is "quaint".<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 03:05 PM

They did a terrific job on the renovations. Did you get to the Rose Space Center?I've had a membership there since I moved to NYC, and visit several times a year. But one of my new fav's is the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Aother major overhaul, and some great shows. And MoMAs almost ready to move back to Manhattan, too — temporarily relocated to Queens during renovations.<br><br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 03:35 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Of course, the majority of the thousands of replies are from well educated computer scientists, so they're mostly liberal.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hahahaha <br>Well educated, computer scientists, liberal. These, I believe, are mutually exclusive. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 04:10 PM

...kinda' makes one wonder why the rest are pushing so hard for the Bush Camp.<br><br>That's why this thread has so much potential interest to me...<br><br>So much more interesting than the common palaver...<br><br>I KNOW why I DON'T want Bush in office,<br>I'm curious why others DO want him in.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 05:01 PM

Well I'm quite certain there is a strong correlation between education and liberal leaning, so are you implying computer scientists are ignorant and republican? Let it be known that I didn't say anything about a relationship between those two characteristics. <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 05:31 PM

Just tried to see it at the corner cinema. 8:15 show was already sold out! <br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 05:35 PM

Well I'm quite certain there is a strong correlation between education and liberal leaning,<br><br>But I know a lot of well educated people who are conservative leaning.<br><br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 05:40 PM

I've no doubt there is a strong correlation between "educators" and liberal leaning. But there's a difference between being educated and being smart.<br><br>I made no implication about the intelligence of computer scientists. They may be brilliant in their field but that, like gene hackers or dentists, gives them no additional qualifications.<br><br>Dwight Eisenhower once said, "An intellectual is a man who takes more words than he needs to say more than he knows." I've no argument with that.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 06:14 PM

REALLY? You should have them stuffed & mounted!<br>-Basil Fawlty<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 06:22 PM

Hmm...somehow I don't think my brothers would like that. Nor the people that I know.<br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Trog

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 06:28 PM

Not just educators, but also educated as well. We've had this discussion here before about the difference between education and intelligence and I'm in complete agreement with you. In fact, I think people with double doctoral degrees are sometimes the dimmest people I've met. Well, about half are incredibly brilliant and motivated beyond belief, while the others are... "special" <br><br>If you look at my post I only pointed out that most contributors on slashdot are educated because its one explanation for why an overwhelming majority of the responses there are liberal. Nothing snotty about it.<br><br>And John... you're absolutely right, of course there are a lot of educated conservatives. There are also african-american conservatives, and (IMO) a shocking number of gay republicans... but neither are a majority for their ethnic or social backgrounds. My point is its just statistics of a huge population - there is bound to be a majority on one side or the other.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 06:41 PM

Of course there's a correlation between intelligence & 'liberal' thinkers.<br>(Those that choose to think for themselves)<br>Having the ability to do independent research, to distinguish the reliability of <br>sources, and to draw independent intelligent conclusions is a hallmark of intelligence.<br><br>It's the 'Control Freaks' & the "Go along just to Get Along" crowd, that I question.<br>The ones so quick to demean, discredit & label the people that they can't control. <br><br>Then of course that little list you published (JohnR)<br>of the 'liberal' members here that 'you don't even bother to read'<br>...nice...<br><br>Ah, was that in the 'Fear is Profitable' thread or somesuch?<br> ....the one that I said 'Fear of INCLUSION & EXCLUSION'? <br>as in being used to control people<br><br>yeah, ~ whateveh ~ <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 07:45 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(Those that choose to think for themselves)<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>B-b-b-b-but what if they choose not to share your point of view? Do they lose their Smarty Badge? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It's the 'Control Freaks' & the "Go along just to Get Along" crowd, that I question.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Unless of course they "go along" with you. No further questions, yeronner.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The ones so quick to demean, discredit & label the people that they can't control.<p><hr></blockquote><p>*cough*<br><br>Yeah, ~ whateveah ~ indeed. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:04 PM

...they are indeed allowed their differing opinions.<br><br>Part of intelligent assessment is to learn from others.<br><br>However, I feel that it crossed the line when it becomes <br>a non-stop excercise in bludgeoning with their opinions.<br><br>I'm sorry, that's where it crosses the line...<br>and eventually elicits a response.<br><br>At what point does it become so irritating just from shear<br>redundancy (if nothing else) that one is either forced to leave<br>or start punching the person in the side of the head, to help<br>them move on, like a phonograph with a sticking needle.<br><br>I realize, YOU, all mighty self appointed leader, have the <br>patience of Job, ...but I admittedly, do not. I've never<br>made any claims to sainthood.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:17 PM

...of course what pushes it over the edge...<br>is the little pity party where y'all sit around wringng your hands<br>about the political threads driving away members, yet never<br>attempt to approach the member posting all these threads,<br>and voicing your opinion about it it's doing to your community.<br><br>WHY?<br><br>Because it's YOUR candidate he's endorcing ('Round the freakin clock)?<br><br>I rest MY Case youronner. <br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/27/04 08:47 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...of course what pushes it over the edge...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Maybe you're already too close to the edge in the first place.<br><br>And please don't tell me that a slew of mean-spirited wisecracks is the way to deal with this redundancy you have such a problem with. Matter of fact, these pro-Bush posts that seem to get your goat number far far less in number than posts that go the other way. But that redundancy doesn't phase you, does it? And that's probably because you interpret it as consistency. Well, people with an opposing POV have a right to be consistent, too. And for the record, I personally don't have a candidate yet, but if someone else does, why is it wrong to endorse said candidate "'Round the freakin clock"?<br><br>Nah, IMHO, you're just looking for a stone to grind your axe on.<br><br>But I agree with you on one point, I do have the patience of Job. Steves_Job, of course. Your tireless, self-appointed, thread derailing leader. <br><br>
Posted by: NotTheOnly1

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 12:42 AM

So you don't like someone who's fat, opinionated, and narrowminded about America.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 02:48 AM

Then of course that little list you published (JohnR)<br>of the 'liberal' members here that 'you don't even bother to read'<br>...nice...<br><br><br>Ahh....take something I posted and use it out of context! Way to go!<br><br>The so called "list" was posted in this thread titled "I sure do miss Sherman" on page 2 where I posted, quote:<br>"I don't recall that either.<br><br>We have some left-wingers here:<br>Cherry<br>Celandine<br>nutty<br>sean<br>Mikebx<br>and some others I'm sure..but can't recall right now."<br><br>So it was only because you are you! welcome back". end quote.<br>Does it say up there that (to quote you) [color:red]I don't even bother to read</font color=red>? No? ok...good. Still with me?<br><br>Now...HERE is where you got mixed up. In the same thread about missing Sherman, but on page 3 I posted, and I quote:<br><br>[color:red]Nope. Course anything by TGD I generally skip over.</font color=red><br><br>Same thing as what you just said here? Noooo...cause I only said that I generally, not ALWAYS, skip over TGD, aka TheGreatDivide, threads.<br><br>Now please...get your facts straight or at least tell a better lie. <br><br>last quote of you:<br><br>yeah, ~whatever ~ <br><br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 04:08 AM

So where are all these Bush attacking threads?<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 04:16 AM

*bites tongue*<br><br><br><br><br><br>This could be the political version of If you have to ask, you can't afford it.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 07:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So you don't like someone who's fat, opinionated, and narrowminded about America.<p><hr></blockquote><p>eh? I don't get what you're trying to say with your comment and the picture.<br><br>Aside from that, to answer your question: I just don't like Michael Moore ..<br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 08:37 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>eh? I don't get what you're trying to say with your comment and the picture.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That makes at least two of us. Ofcourse John Lennon once said when he looked back at spiteful things he wrote like How Do You Sleep At Night he realized he was really talking about himself. So maybe someone who uses a Lennon line as a name is just talking about himself. <br><br> What's your candidate doing?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 08:56 AM

"Pot, meet, er... iron. <br><br><br><br><br><br>Did you want starch with your tea? <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:03 AM

well?<br><br>Yeah, I thought so.<br><br>With few exceptions most of the posts addressing Bush at all<br>have been addressed to his or his administration's policy and practices.<br>Are you trying to gag the members for the right to descent what they resent? <br>I believe (at least as of now) that's still one of our constitutional rights.<br><br>So... What's the ratio? like 20:1 bashing everyone BUT Bush,<br>even though it's the bush camp doing all the complaining <br>about the perceived, imaginary, or trumped up bashing just <br>to use it as a further excuse to bash every other candidate,<br>past present & future.<br><br>PLEASE!!!! <br><br>If we wanted to Bash-Bush there is so much ammunition out there<br>that us "liberals" could unleash a never-ending torrent of BS at a <br>moments notice, if we wanted to. It really is the sign of immaturity,<br>so why bother?<br><br><br>That's a large part of what's so irritating about this horse pucky!<br>Being falsely accused of doing what isn't true.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:05 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"Pot, meet, er... iron.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ahhhhhhh .. OHMYGOD! I'm FAT?! No one told me!! <br><br><br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:07 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That makes at least two of us. Ofcourse John Lennon once said when he looked back at spiteful things he wrote like How Do You Sleep At Night he realized he was really talking about himself. So maybe someone who uses a Lennon line as a name is just talking about himself.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Brother, that's one hell of a breakdown ... yes indeed.<br><br>****************<br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:41 AM

well??<br><br>I thought so...no response. <br><br>Thank you.<br><br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:53 AM

Y'know, for someone who's accused others of being smug, you've ridden in on a pretty high horse yourself. And speaking of pity parties, there you go again with "you're just trying to shut us up 'cuz we're too damned smart for you. Conspiracy! Conspiracy!!!" <br><br>Maybe you have time to go digging for specific posts to "prove" your point. I don 't. And even if I did, I'm sure you'd find a way to spin the content another way, and we'de be off on yet another tangent. So now you can justify your prescience. You thought so... big deal.<br><br>You're just so predictable Celandine. Anyone who doesn't kiss your @ss and start calling for Bush & Co's collective head gets ripped a new one by you — not necessarily becauase it's right or wrong, but because it annoys you.<br><br>Speaking for myself, you haven't seen me attack, criticize or bash any candidate, but you've seen me express my doubts a/b the current Administration. I told you before, I have no candidate as of this moment, but I know who I won't vote for.<br><br>Get over yourself already. This ain't the United States of Celandine. Everyone has the right to support the candidate of their choice, whether you approve or not. Maybe if you could bring yourself to disagree with someone without all the snide remarks and inuendo, there'd be far less irritating "horse pucky".<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:55 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i'm not a therapist<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>That's quite obvious.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i think you feel guilty of lies and you think you can make it good by admitting your wrongdoing<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't feel guilty of anything. I've lied.. I'm human. So what? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>going back to the subject, you are defending Bush&Co by saying, yes they lied, but everyone does.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Really? Perhaps you'd like to re-read the post. I'm not defending Bush at all. In fact, I could care less about Bush as I'm a libertarian. If Bush wins, the country loses. If Kerry wins, the country loses. That's my view. An attack on Michael Moore does not equal defending Bush... although I will defend him if I think he's being unfairly attacked... and yes I'd defend MM if I thought he was too.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>your fanaticism for Bush goes to irrational extents.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Really? What do you say about the people that have him in their signature graphics and can't post a thing without calling him some sort of name?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>it's obviously not true, i don't even want to go into arguing with it.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Liar.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:58 AM

*snicker*<br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 09:59 AM

*psst* Steve...is this where I come in and agree with you? <br><br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 10:32 AM

I thought so. <br><br>you make a statement you can't support <br>so you choose to go on the attack by turning the situation on end<br><br>*spin*spin*spin*<br><br>get over yourself.<br><br>holy heck!<br>I just realyzed that you diverted yet ANOTHER thread! HAHAHAHA<br><br>AH! Yes, The World According to GREENBLATT!<br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 10:49 AM

It seems you just can't get as good as you give. Therefore it's an "attack" in your view. So be it. You wanna keep the knot in your under-shorts because I'm not wasting my time on a linkfest to satisfy you? Enjoy. Back to you, clairvoyant one.<br><br>*rattle*rattle*rattle*<br><br>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 10:57 AM

Still ignoring the fact that you were wrong back there, eh Celandine?<br><br>I notice no response still. <br><br>Denial isn't just a river in Africa.<br><br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:37 AM

I diverted the thread? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA right back atcha.<br><br>Maybe you better go back and read it from the top — and see if you can figure out who it's really the world according to.<br><br>You're beginning to remind me of another member here who's been known to blindside others in a rather diabolical way, and then play the victim when she gets nailed for it. I know you're not her sockpuppet, but maybe her apprentice? Hmmmm...<br><br><br>*shakes head & rolls eyes*<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:38 AM

spin away. that's what you're paid to do, is it not?<br><br>You have all day, thousands of posts under multiple names...<br>now you're to busy?<br><br>~whateveh~<br><br>my "shorts" are not in a knot<br>I'm simply cleaning up loose ends.<br><br>You've been making sneery little remarks <br>to me for the past few weeks,<br>I just thought it was high time we clear the air.<br><br>If you find it so upsetting that a single member<br>doesn't kowtow to you,<br>or even PRETEND to be amused by your dishy little asides.<br><br>well, tough<br><br>This ain't Sesame Street,<br>Who sez we have to like each other.<br><br>But so far, you were the one making the remarks, not me.<br>I just felt we might want to get it straightened out.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:41 AM

who the hell are you talking about NOW?<br><br>More Dishy-Remarks?<br><br>Geeze! Dig yourself.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:46 AM

Oh, ...and John, wipe the nrown stuff off your nose.<br>This had nothing to do with you in the first place.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:49 AM

The nrown stuff? <br><br>How about going back through this thread and reading what I posted in response to YOU. I believe an apology is supposed to be directed to me...but then again...from you, I doubt it's coming.<br><br><br>"You mean they're taking the thoughts we think we thought and making them thoughts we think we thought... I think." - Patrick
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 11:50 AM

A few weeks is it now? If you say so.<br>Time for me to step away from this one and give you more time to count all those posts under my multiple me's.<br><br><br>Oh, and you can tell the world (the one according to Celandine) that you won this one if it makes you happy. Mazeltov. Over and out.<br><br><br><br><br><br>Hooboy. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 12:06 PM

Gee he forgot to say who was slamming... <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 06/28/04 12:11 PM

...and John, if there's a reason I should be apologizing, then I do. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 07/13/04 12:09 PM

Looks like we may need to stop quoting Joe Wilson...<br>Our man in Niger<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet" -- Michael Moore on his fellow US citizens
Posted by: sean

Re: Saw (Farenheit 911) - 07/13/04 12:24 PM

so far, i've seen 2 conservative op-eds on the issue. i'll kindly wait to see some news and/or wilson's own spin on the matter before 86ing the guy. frankly, that opinion piece just lead to be believe that wilson's wife was extremely good and didn't even talk with her husband, which is why he didn't know that she helped arrange the mission for him. <br><br>--<br>"It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances...[Moore's] most disciplined and powerful movie to date." -- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES