|
Post by inatent on Aug 12, 2004 7:24:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Aug 12, 2004 9:51:07 GMT -5
On a point by point examination Farenheit-9/11 would come out looking like Gosple!
|
|
|
Post by HA on Aug 12, 2004 13:24:13 GMT -5
Bush took the US to war, alienated its allies, served his oil-business buddies and transformed the surplus into a deficit. Kerry is a liar and unfit to command. Hey ! Among more than 250 million Americans do you have to propose only these two for President No other person is willing or capable enough to make the USA great again? Poor fellows ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 12, 2004 14:30:11 GMT -5
Wrong. The war came to us. We're finally fighting back.
Yeah -- the ones involved in the Iraq Oil for Food corruption. Big deal.
Michael Moore talking points, imagine that. Emotional comment, but that's about the extent of it.
A result of the attack on our country, the following loss of business/jobs becaue of that event, and our country's answer to that attack.
|
|
|
Post by American voter on Aug 12, 2004 16:08:36 GMT -5
Bush took the US to war, alienated its allies, served his oil-business buddies and transformed the surplus into a deficit. Kerry is a liar and unfit to command. Hey ! Among more than 250 million Americans do you have to propose only these two for President No other person is willing or capable enough to make the USA great again? Poor fellows ... Yeah, it's sad that of the two main choices we have both seem unsuitable for the job. IMNSHO, Kerry would be the better of two lousy choices.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Aug 12, 2004 16:51:52 GMT -5
Please read the «House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties» by Craig Unger.
Please read «The Price of Loyalty: Goerge W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill» by Ron Suskind
Very sad indeed - among more than 250 million Americans ... Even no name could be a better choice ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 12, 2004 21:25:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 13, 2004 0:11:39 GMT -5
. . . . Any one of our nearly 300 million Americans could be a better choice for the leadership of other countries than the current leaders already there. . . . . Does that mean you decline the nomination? I was just thinking about starting a petition! ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by HA on Aug 13, 2004 3:59:17 GMT -5
We are speaking about the US and Kerry. Of course «every country gets the government it deserves», so do not try to twist the discussion.
BusinessWeek writes that Americans are hated all over the world because of Bush's policies. Do not try to turn this argument into a personal problem between me and the US. If you do not like what a leading american business magazine says, do not try accusing people of imaginary things ... In fact the problem stays with you.
Again you become personal and do not give arguments. How typical of you ... and many of your fellow citizens.
As for the allegations that Suskind, O'Neil and Moore are frauders, I thought that fraud is a crime in the US, as it is in many other parts of the world. So why these people have not been taken to justice so far ?
And why their books and films are distributed freely ? In the US and other parts of the world a judge can order an editor to withdraw a book from print and correct errors before it is allowed to circulate again. Until such a thing occurs, I will consider all the allegations about Suskind, O'Neil and Moore being frauds as unsubstantiated conservative propaganda by Bush, Cheney and Co as well as by their «poor» disciples.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 13, 2004 15:36:49 GMT -5
BW can write whatever they want. I suspect that the US is hated because of it's collective strength, guts, courage, etc. People like Bush and Lance Armstrong only personify the American spirit and are thus hated by Europe as a result. The only way America would be less hated under Kerry is if we fall on our faces as a result of his policys.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 13, 2004 20:16:56 GMT -5
I did read it. And it is no better than the film in showing the truth and the reasons behind what it claims. Just one example: Item #3 in their claim: "3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits. But a closer examination of the quoted report shows the following: "But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name. Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes-- whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots. " So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The buried story was that there were more valid votes cast in Florida for Gore than for Bush. There are countless sites both for and against MM's film. they all contain the distortions needed to support the writers view. Selective quoting and partial reporting. It was a movie. If you agree Bush is a fool then it was a good movie. If you think Bush is a Rhodes Scholar leading the US to victory against the terrorists of the world on a White Horse then you probably did not like the film.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 13, 2004 20:51:40 GMT -5
Wrong. The war came to us. We're finally fighting back. No, the fear of what was sold as a potential war was delivered to us and the country invaded Iraq. Let's not mix up the war in Iraq with the war that had been launched against the people who actually did attack us. How many troops are actually engaged against those who did attack? How many against the country that has been shown did not have the weapons nor the delivery systems to even threaten the US? Bush said on Sept. 18 that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." But on March 13, 2002, Bush said of bin Laden "I truly am not that concerned about him". Given the power that bin Laden has I wish that Bush would show a little concern. Yeah -- the ones involved in the Iraq Oil for Food corruption. Big deal. Michael Moore talking points, imagine that. Emotional comment, but that's about the extent of it. A result of the attack on our country, the following loss of business/jobs becaue of that event, and our country's answer to that attack. [/quote]
|
|