That's funny, but so typical. The Dems are always the first to try to do away with free speech
Only if their first name happens to be Tipper or their last name happens to be Lieberman. There are still a lot more speech restricting culture nazies on the right than on the left.
After all, both parties are cut from the same cloth.
I'm amazed that anyone who believes that has the brain power to keep their lungs functioning, because of their overwhelming stupidity. You sound just like Nader, for saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The common clay of the new West. You know, morons.
Do you honestly have any reason to think that he wouldn't be?
Kerry wants to curtail the freedoms of businesses and business owners to do business as they choose.
That's pretty vague...would you care to expand on that statement? I'm sure Oscar Meyer would love to have the freedom to start putting poisoned rat carcasses into sausages like they were a hundred years ago, but I'm glad we have regulations to prevent them from doing so.
Wow, could you have been more patronizing in your post, or did you think you were talking to a bunch of 4 year olds? All of your observations that you think are so clever, like "the iPod is not the only MP3 player out there", could have been told to you by any kid who goes to third grade. On a short bus.
and have way better functionality than the iPod
Um, no. More (generally useless) features? Sure. Better functionality as an MP3 player? No.
I mean, forcing you to use iTunes to load music on it, or else it won't play? What's that all about? Just about every other MP3 player (ok, the creative ones suck in that way too) let's you use it as an USB Mass Storage device, no drivers, no software, and it will play any MP3 you put on there.. Nice and simple!
No its not simple, its a god damn pain in the ass to use regular file system transfers. You can start a transfer in iTunes, drag more songs to your iPod and it will add the new songs to the transfer queue. With regular file transfers, you either have multiple copies running at once, or you wait till one file transfer is over before you start the next one. And searching for songs on an iPod is fast and easy because it has a database of the songs that are on it. With your crab ass system, your player is going to have to rebuild the database on its own, or make do without one...and be slow, slow slow.
People who buy iPods are perfectly aware that there are other options out there. iRiver (iCant come up with my own iNaming scheme) and Sony are about the only other players out there in the size/capacity segment that Apple is in. Sony's player sucks unless you love Sony's format (the only one that will play on it), and the iRiver is about the same price with a couple of neat but mostly novelty features. Now this may come as a shock to you, but many well informed consumers consider the iPod to be the better buy. It has a great interface, great software, doesn't try to be a jack-of-all-trades, and it has a Firewire interface so you can use it as a boot device.
And get this, if you buy argos, creative, iRiver, or any other brand -- You're not contractually required to give Steve Jobs a rim-job..
Uh huh. It sounds like you need one...from those flesh eating beetles from The Mummy.
The article goes in depth about each major news channel, detailing exactly what time each anounced calls and retractions. It explicitly makes the distinction between calling if for Bush/Gore, and retracting a call.
If they know the distinction, then why did they spend most of the section talking about when the call was retracted? This is just like the MSNBC article that spent its entire time talking about how unfair Moore's film was on the subject of the Bush family's ties to Arab interests. Except that they talk all around the issue without making a real point or proving that Moore was wrong. For example, they talk about how the UNOCOL pipeline was conceived when Clinton was president. But Clinton wasn't president when the administration helped install a former UNOCOL employee as President of Afghanistan!
Moral of the story: rich Saudi's still gave over a billion to companies that had ties to the Bush family, it still smells fishy that a former UNOCOL employee becomes president of Afghanistan as the pipeline project starts going again, and FOX was still the first network to call Florida for Bush, after his cousin told them to.
If these guys are bitching about someone else's fairness and accuracy, they had *damn* well better be fair and accurate themselves, or else they'll come across as idiots and hypocrites. It also wouldn't be as bad if they had objected to the Gore myths put out by the media and the RNC (inventing the Internet, love canal, etc etc) or the Swift Boat captains for Truth, but they tend to be the sort of people who spread those kind of lies around rather than debunk them.
Since you can't be bothered to do a Google search yourself
Oh? And why is it my job to prove your assertions for you? Don't be such a lazy bastard.
I'll provide a link to a site that does a resonable job of discrediting Moore:
Uh huh. Except they didn't do a "reasonable job", none of them do. Because not only have I yet to see a site prove that Moore is a liar, but these same sites use the same lies, innuendos, hair splitting and half-truths that they accuse Moore of doing. After reading just a few paragraphs its obvious that these guys don't realize that the difference between retracting the call that Gore won Florida with calling it for Bush is rather huge. They also talk about the "obvious" lie that Saddam never murdered a single American citizen. Well if its so obvious, then why don't you name some Americans murdered by Saddam? Don't forget that Saddam was Bush I's and Reagan's pet dictator before he invaded Kuwait, and after the war the only American's likely to be in Iraq were soldiers and weapons inspectors, and Saddam wouldn't dare "murder" any of those.
You're going to have to do better than this. Its also very telling that there's been more hot air over Moore's accuracy than over the accuracy of the Clinton Cronicles, the Gore Myths, the Dean Scream and Kerry's uber liberalness combined. That's because neocons keep taking hypocracy to new heights, the suckers of Satan's cock that they are.
uh, I agree, that's what I'm saying!! I'm replying to the retard that now got moded to -1 who said they can't.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Sorry about that, I browse at 0 so I thought you were the jerk. Looks like you're not the one who's a dumbass today.:-)
Its my understanding that got started, along with saying "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, as more of an anti-communism thing than a pro religion thing. But I'm waiting for the day when the courts finally stop that nonsense.
No its not, you dumbass. If someone from Alberta competes in the Olympics, its for Canada and the Canadian flag is flown. If someone from Taiwan competes in the Olympics, its for Taiwan, not China. If they can compete as a seperate country, why can't they fly their sperate country's flag?
And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China, or the subject at hand? That doens't change the fact tha most liberals are in fact not intolerant of religion, haven't dominated the press. etc etc.
But either way its a well known fact that the richest of the rich are generally democrats.
If its a well known fact then you can come up with some well known links to show that.:) And even if they are, I don't recall too many stories of Warren Buffet having a major role in the Democratic party.
Most of these rich democrats claim they don't want tax breaks because they don't need them.
Or they realize the fact that what they pay in taxes is worth it. The anti-tax crowd seems uncapable of understanding the concept of indirect benefits; they think that any tax they pay that doesn't come straight back to them or the military is a waste. Except that the more money you make, the more you have benefited from taxes. Microsoft does business in all 50 states, so Bill benefits from having a good interstate highway system to ship Microsoft's products. And public education means Microsoft doens't have to spend much training its employees, and it means a larger middle class to buy its products. And it has the United States government working for favorable trade agreements and pressuring other countries to crack down on software piracy. And so on.
as their riches generally don't come from industry or much hard work
Hmm? You can become moderatly rich by being lazy and lucky, but I don't see how you become super rich without a lot of hard work. I don't think much of Microsoft's software or business practices, but I'll never accuse Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer of not being hard workers.
While the average middle class person is republican
There's plenty of both.
and understands how these tax breaks will affect small buisnesses.
Mostly a red herring. If a business owner thinks his business will benefit from an expansion, then he'll expand. If you overexpand its not good for your business model. This is why supply side economics are bunk, and the owners personal income doens't have much to do with it (i.e. if his buisiness expands, he'll get more income, and so on).
Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war.
Say what? Would you care to expand on that statement? How do 3 purple hearts, a silver cross, and stellar performance reviews amount to "questionable"?
but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
How about not sending other people off to die unless you're damn sure its the right thing to do?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin.
Um, you sound like the Nader supporters in 2000 who said the same thing about Bush and Gore. The common clay of the New West. You know... morons.
Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration?
Huh. And how many democrats have argued that the government has the right to imprison people indefinetly without a hearing?
John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like.
You have any evidence for that or are you just going by 30 year old sterotypes based on his party affiliation?
While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact?
A lot were left out, as millions of people don't make enough money to pay income taxes but do pay payroll taxes. No tax cut for those folks.
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness
Again, you have any evidence for that?
What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years?
still bet i could name ten liberal republicans for every 1 conservative democrat you can name.
Becha can't. Over the last 15 years or so the right wing of the GOP has taken over the party, with an "our way or the highway" attitude. Centrist and liberal republicans are so shouted down that they are an almost extinct species. i.e. Jim Jeffords telling the right wing to screw off as he went independant. And as far as conservative democrats go, there are plenty...the media just looks at the party affiliation and assumes they must be liberal. i.e. the media asking if Howard Dean was too liberal to be elected, neglecting the fact that Dean had a center/conservative record as govenor.
there are many pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige republicans. throwing in socialist narrows it a bit, but there are those too.
And then they run smack into Tom Delay and are rendered impotent, like the Log Cabin Republicans. I never said that all Republicans are right wing neocons, just that the party is currently dominated by them.
The GOP didn't have to discredit Moore. The bipartisan 9/11 Commision already did.
What? Where? When? How? All of the GOP's "descrediting" of Moore involves throwing out vauge, meanlingless statments like you just did, without backing them up.
And Moore is just as much or an idealogue as Savage, if not worse.
Well, lets see...Moore goes out of his way to research his movies and present his viewpoint backed up with facts, and Savage just speaks out of his ass all the time.
Common, don't be lazy. If F911 is crap and Moore is full of it, lets see some links proving it, or STFU.
People don't mind swapping discs in consols because they are designed to only play one game at a time. However, computers with their vast hard drives, are able to store thousands of programs at a time without needing to insert a cd. You don't see Photoshop asking you to put in the install cd. The reason why sights like Gamecopyworld.com are so popular is because people don't want stupid limitations that aren't there for technological reasons, but because the developers deliberatly wanted to be a pain in the ass.
Now, if the Democrats (as a party) don't want to define themselves in terms of the rabid OMFGBUSHISEVIL crowd, they shouldn't have invited Moore to sit in the presidential box at the convention.
What a crock. One of the great modern political hypocracies in this country is how Republicans are free to be as full of partisanship and retoric as they want, but the moment a democrat shows some spit and vinigar is the moment they've gone too far. I haven't seen the GOP come up with a single provably false statement from F911, compared to the president and vice president who lie as a matter of course on the campaign trail. i.e., Cheney making claims of an Al Queda/Saddam link months after it had been debunked, or Bush claiming that Kerry called himself the anti-war candidate.
Imagine the shit-storm if the Republicans have Michael Savage sit in their presidential box at the RNC.
As if Savage and Moore were remotely comparible. And shit-storm, wtf are you talking about? Coozing up to people like Savage is a matter of course for the GOP. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Rush Limbagh, the list goes on. And I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see some of those people "in their presidential box at the RNC".
John Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record in the senate.
Bzzzt wrong! That is based on one year out of Kerry's entire Senate career, and during that time he voted with the rest of the Democrats almost all the time, and missed many votes. If you actually look at his entire record, he clocks in at #11 on the liberalness scale. As if being liberal were a bad thing in the first place.
democrat, you can't run for a big office unless you're pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism (essentially)
Oh, thats right, since so many pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism Republicans get elected all the time.
and you really believe that the dems are the moderates?
Of course they are, because they are so pussy whipped and terrified of being called that four letter word, "liberal". Why don't you check the GOP and see how far its moved to the right over the last 15 years...if the Earth was flat, they would have moved so far to the right as to fall off the face of the planet.
The Democratic bankroller, George Soros, is a multi-billionaire. He's the funder behind MoveOn.org and one of the world's wealthiest persons.
Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdock. Looks like the GOP has the Democrats beat 2-1 as far as billionare sponsors go. And Scaife has been at this for lot longer than Soros has.
Warren Buffet, multi-billionaire and depending on the list, the second richest man in the US (behind Bill Gates, who donates to both parties) is exclusively pro-Democrat.
And this proves....what? As someone else pointed out, Gates is a Republican.
Most of Hollywood's rich are Democrats and despise Republicans.
Most Hollywood owners, who have a lot more money than actors, are Republicans. But again, this does what to prove the price of rice in China?
Here's a clue to help you validate this fact: look at what geographic regions vote Republican (aka fly over country, or the "Red states" which the elitists aka Democrats point out are rural schmucks not worth their time). Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Riiight. No one said this more perfectly, and honestly than George Bush at a Fat Cat dinner: "some call you the elite...I call you my base". Who got most of the Bush tax cuts? The rich. Who was totally left out? Those who don't make enough money to pay income taxes, but do pay payroll taxes. Which were increased to pay for things like Medicare and Social Security. So much for "if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut", and the GOP being the party of the "common man".
Um, no, that would be very unfair. Massively unfair. Biblically unfair.
In other words, I pay $1000/year for roads and Bill Gates would pay $1000/year for roads.
Hello? Did you pay any attention to what I said origionally? I live in North Dakota. How much do I directly benefit from having a good interstate highway system in Texas, Georgia, and the rest of the south? Not much. How about Bill Gates? Last time I checked, Microsoft did business in all 50 states, and certainally benefits from having a good transportation system to ship its products. Now you could say that the employees of Microsoft also benefit, but as the average CEO makes 500 times as much as the average employee, then said CEO can pay 500 times as much.
Sure, rich people benefit from the government, but guess what? So do we.
Its the degree to which we benefit. Duh.
It's the rich people (and not the government like some people seem to think) who create jobs.
Wow, thats gotta be the best statement since Rush Limbaugh's claim that there's never been a sucessful federal program. The government doesn't create jobs? A few million veterans might have to disagree with you. Along with several hundered thousand teachers. And construction on the aforementioned highways. And so on and so forth.
And trickle down ecnomics were a proven flop. You give more money to the rich, you are just giving more money to the rich. They aren't going to turn around and make more jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. If their company will benefit from adding more jobs, then they'll add more jobs. Doing so under any other conditions can be *bad* for the company, because they'll overexpand.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, but so typical. The Dems are always the first to try to do away with free speech
Only if their first name happens to be Tipper or their last name happens to be Lieberman. There are still a lot more speech restricting culture nazies on the right than on the left.
After all, both parties are cut from the same cloth.
I'm amazed that anyone who believes that has the brain power to keep their lungs functioning, because of their overwhelming stupidity. You sound just like Nader, for saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The common clay of the new West. You know, morons.
Do you honestly think Kerry will be any better?
Do you honestly have any reason to think that he wouldn't be?
Kerry wants to curtail the freedoms of businesses and business owners to do business as they choose.
That's pretty vague...would you care to expand on that statement? I'm sure Oscar Meyer would love to have the freedom to start putting poisoned rat carcasses into sausages like they were a hundred years ago, but I'm glad we have regulations to prevent them from doing so.
Wow, could you have been more patronizing in your post, or did you think you were talking to a bunch of 4 year olds? All of your observations that you think are so clever, like "the iPod is not the only MP3 player out there", could have been told to you by any kid who goes to third grade. On a short bus.
and have way better functionality than the iPod
Um, no. More (generally useless) features? Sure. Better functionality as an MP3 player? No.
I mean, forcing you to use iTunes to load music on it, or else it won't play? What's that all about? Just about every other MP3 player (ok, the creative ones suck in that way too) let's you use it as an USB Mass Storage device, no drivers, no software, and it will play any MP3 you put on there.. Nice and simple!
No its not simple, its a god damn pain in the ass to use regular file system transfers. You can start a transfer in iTunes, drag more songs to your iPod and it will add the new songs to the transfer queue. With regular file transfers, you either have multiple copies running at once, or you wait till one file transfer is over before you start the next one. And searching for songs on an iPod is fast and easy because it has a database of the songs that are on it. With your crab ass system, your player is going to have to rebuild the database on its own, or make do without one...and be slow, slow slow.
People who buy iPods are perfectly aware that there are other options out there. iRiver (iCant come up with my own iNaming scheme) and Sony are about the only other players out there in the size/capacity segment that Apple is in. Sony's player sucks unless you love Sony's format (the only one that will play on it), and the iRiver is about the same price with a couple of neat but mostly novelty features. Now this may come as a shock to you, but many well informed consumers consider the iPod to be the better buy. It has a great interface, great software, doesn't try to be a jack-of-all-trades, and it has a Firewire interface so you can use it as a boot device.
And get this, if you buy argos, creative, iRiver, or any other brand -- You're not contractually required to give Steve Jobs a rim-job..
Uh huh. It sounds like you need one...from those flesh eating beetles from The Mummy.
The article goes in depth about each major news channel, detailing exactly what time each anounced calls and retractions. It explicitly makes the distinction between calling if for Bush/Gore, and retracting a call.
If they know the distinction, then why did they spend most of the section talking about when the call was retracted? This is just like the MSNBC article that spent its entire time talking about how unfair Moore's film was on the subject of the Bush family's ties to Arab interests. Except that they talk all around the issue without making a real point or proving that Moore was wrong. For example, they talk about how the UNOCOL pipeline was conceived when Clinton was president. But Clinton wasn't president when the administration helped install a former UNOCOL employee as President of Afghanistan!
Moral of the story: rich Saudi's still gave over a billion to companies that had ties to the Bush family, it still smells fishy that a former UNOCOL employee becomes president of Afghanistan as the pipeline project starts going again, and FOX was still the first network to call Florida for Bush, after his cousin told them to.
If these guys are bitching about someone else's fairness and accuracy, they had *damn* well better be fair and accurate themselves, or else they'll come across as idiots and hypocrites. It also wouldn't be as bad if they had objected to the Gore myths put out by the media and the RNC (inventing the Internet, love canal, etc etc) or the Swift Boat captains for Truth, but they tend to be the sort of people who spread those kind of lies around rather than debunk them.
Since you can't be bothered to do a Google search yourself
Oh? And why is it my job to prove your assertions for you? Don't be such a lazy bastard.
I'll provide a link to a site that does a resonable job of discrediting Moore:
Uh huh. Except they didn't do a "reasonable job", none of them do. Because not only have I yet to see a site prove that Moore is a liar, but these same sites use the same lies, innuendos, hair splitting and half-truths that they accuse Moore of doing. After reading just a few paragraphs its obvious that these guys don't realize that the difference between retracting the call that Gore won Florida with calling it for Bush is rather huge. They also talk about the "obvious" lie that Saddam never murdered a single American citizen. Well if its so obvious, then why don't you name some Americans murdered by Saddam? Don't forget that Saddam was Bush I's and Reagan's pet dictator before he invaded Kuwait, and after the war the only American's likely to be in Iraq were soldiers and weapons inspectors, and Saddam wouldn't dare "murder" any of those.
You're going to have to do better than this. Its also very telling that there's been more hot air over Moore's accuracy than over the accuracy of the Clinton Cronicles, the Gore Myths, the Dean Scream and Kerry's uber liberalness combined. That's because neocons keep taking hypocracy to new heights, the suckers of Satan's cock that they are.
uh, I agree, that's what I'm saying!! I'm replying to the retard that now got moded to -1 who said they can't.
:-)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Sorry about that, I browse at 0 so I thought you were the jerk. Looks like you're not the one who's a dumbass today.
Why does your money say "In God we Trust"?
Its my understanding that got started, along with saying "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, as more of an anti-communism thing than a pro religion thing. But I'm waiting for the day when the courts finally stop that nonsense.
Your argument is extremely weak.
No its not, you dumbass. If someone from Alberta competes in the Olympics, its for Canada and the Canadian flag is flown. If someone from Taiwan competes in the Olympics, its for Taiwan, not China. If they can compete as a seperate country, why can't they fly their sperate country's flag?
If a theater is on the verge of collapsing and sells poisoned food, its their choice, don't go. What's the problem?
And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China, or the subject at hand? That doens't change the fact tha most liberals are in fact not intolerant of religion, haven't dominated the press. etc etc.
But either way its a well known fact that the richest of the rich are generally democrats.
:) And even if they are, I don't recall too many stories of Warren Buffet having a major role in the Democratic party.
If its a well known fact then you can come up with some well known links to show that.
Most of these rich democrats claim they don't want tax breaks because they don't need them.
Or they realize the fact that what they pay in taxes is worth it. The anti-tax crowd seems uncapable of understanding the concept of indirect benefits; they think that any tax they pay that doesn't come straight back to them or the military is a waste. Except that the more money you make, the more you have benefited from taxes. Microsoft does business in all 50 states, so Bill benefits from having a good interstate highway system to ship Microsoft's products. And public education means Microsoft doens't have to spend much training its employees, and it means a larger middle class to buy its products. And it has the United States government working for favorable trade agreements and pressuring other countries to crack down on software piracy. And so on.
as their riches generally don't come from industry or much hard work
Hmm? You can become moderatly rich by being lazy and lucky, but I don't see how you become super rich without a lot of hard work. I don't think much of Microsoft's software or business practices, but I'll never accuse Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer of not being hard workers.
While the average middle class person is republican
There's plenty of both.
and understands how these tax breaks will affect small buisnesses.
Mostly a red herring. If a business owner thinks his business will benefit from an expansion, then he'll expand. If you overexpand its not good for your business model. This is why supply side economics are bunk, and the owners personal income doens't have much to do with it (i.e. if his buisiness expands, he'll get more income, and so on).
Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war.
... morons.
Say what? Would you care to expand on that statement? How do 3 purple hearts, a silver cross, and stellar performance reviews amount to "questionable"?
but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
How about not sending other people off to die unless you're damn sure its the right thing to do?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin.
Um, you sound like the Nader supporters in 2000 who said the same thing about Bush and Gore. The common clay of the New West. You know
Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration?
Huh. And how many democrats have argued that the government has the right to imprison people indefinetly without a hearing?
John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like.
You have any evidence for that or are you just going by 30 year old sterotypes based on his party affiliation?
While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact?
A lot were left out, as millions of people don't make enough money to pay income taxes but do pay payroll taxes. No tax cut for those folks.
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness
Again, you have any evidence for that?
What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years?
Plenty (scroll half way down the page).
A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful intelligent debate on any subject
According to what? Your ass?
Kerry is a man without a conscience, a egotistical political opportunitst. Bush is single-minded, a hard headed egotist.
Yup, definetly your ass. Too bad you can't change your account name, or I'd suggest you change yours to 'Pigeon Hole'.
still bet i could name ten liberal republicans for every 1 conservative democrat you can name.
Becha can't. Over the last 15 years or so the right wing of the GOP has taken over the party, with an "our way or the highway" attitude. Centrist and liberal republicans are so shouted down that they are an almost extinct species. i.e. Jim Jeffords telling the right wing to screw off as he went independant. And as far as conservative democrats go, there are plenty...the media just looks at the party affiliation and assumes they must be liberal. i.e. the media asking if Howard Dean was too liberal to be elected, neglecting the fact that Dean had a center/conservative record as govenor.
there are many pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige republicans. throwing in socialist narrows it a bit, but there are those too.
And then they run smack into Tom Delay and are rendered impotent, like the Log Cabin Republicans. I never said that all Republicans are right wing neocons, just that the party is currently dominated by them.
The GOP didn't have to discredit Moore. The bipartisan 9/11 Commision already did.
What? Where? When? How? All of the GOP's "descrediting" of Moore involves throwing out vauge, meanlingless statments like you just did, without backing them up.
And Moore is just as much or an idealogue as Savage, if not worse.
Well, lets see...Moore goes out of his way to research his movies and present his viewpoint backed up with facts, and Savage just speaks out of his ass all the time.
Common, don't be lazy. If F911 is crap and Moore is full of it, lets see some links proving it, or STFU.
Certainly they are seen as liberal by all the republicans.
Except that a lot of republicans belive that anyone who isn't a republican is liberal.
People don't mind swapping discs in consols because they are designed to only play one game at a time. However, computers with their vast hard drives, are able to store thousands of programs at a time without needing to insert a cd. You don't see Photoshop asking you to put in the install cd. The reason why sights like Gamecopyworld.com are so popular is because people don't want stupid limitations that aren't there for technological reasons, but because the developers deliberatly wanted to be a pain in the ass.
Now, if the Democrats (as a party) don't want to define themselves in terms of the rabid OMFGBUSHISEVIL crowd, they shouldn't have invited Moore to sit in the presidential box at the convention.
What a crock. One of the great modern political hypocracies in this country is how Republicans are free to be as full of partisanship and retoric as they want, but the moment a democrat shows some spit and vinigar is the moment they've gone too far. I haven't seen the GOP come up with a single provably false statement from F911, compared to the president and vice president who lie as a matter of course on the campaign trail. i.e., Cheney making claims of an Al Queda/Saddam link months after it had been debunked, or Bush claiming that Kerry called himself the anti-war candidate.
Imagine the shit-storm if the Republicans have Michael Savage sit in their presidential box at the RNC.
As if Savage and Moore were remotely comparible. And shit-storm, wtf are you talking about? Coozing up to people like Savage is a matter of course for the GOP. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Rush Limbagh, the list goes on. And I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see some of those people "in their presidential box at the RNC".
Why don't you go find a single provably false statment in Moore's movie.
I wont hold my breath waiting for you to find one.
John Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record in the senate.
Bzzzt wrong! That is based on one year out of Kerry's entire Senate career, and during that time he voted with the rest of the Democrats almost all the time, and missed many votes. If you actually look at his entire record, he clocks in at #11 on the liberalness scale. As if being liberal were a bad thing in the first place.
democrat, you can't run for a big office unless you're pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism (essentially)
Oh, thats right, since so many pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism Republicans get elected all the time.
and you really believe that the dems are the moderates?
Of course they are, because they are so pussy whipped and terrified of being called that four letter word, "liberal". Why don't you check the GOP and see how far its moved to the right over the last 15 years...if the Earth was flat, they would have moved so far to the right as to fall off the face of the planet.
1) single issue voters are retarded
and
2) go make a list of Democrats who would throw away the 2nd amendment
and
3) don't forget it was Reagan who signed the origional assault weapons ban
The KKK is a democratic organization. Google it.
Have you been in a coma since 1960? Try googling "southern strategy".
The Democratic bankroller, George Soros, is a multi-billionaire. He's the funder behind MoveOn.org and one of the world's wealthiest persons.
Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdock. Looks like the GOP has the Democrats beat 2-1 as far as billionare sponsors go. And Scaife has been at this for lot longer than Soros has.
Warren Buffet, multi-billionaire and depending on the list, the second richest man in the US (behind Bill Gates, who donates to both parties) is exclusively pro-Democrat.
And this proves....what? As someone else pointed out, Gates is a Republican.
Most of Hollywood's rich are Democrats and despise Republicans.
Most Hollywood owners, who have a lot more money than actors, are Republicans. But again, this does what to prove the price of rice in China?
Here's a clue to help you validate this fact: look at what geographic regions vote Republican (aka fly over country, or the "Red states" which the elitists aka Democrats point out are rural schmucks not worth their time). Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Riiight. No one said this more perfectly, and honestly than George Bush at a Fat Cat dinner: "some call you the elite...I call you my base". Who got most of the Bush tax cuts? The rich. Who was totally left out? Those who don't make enough money to pay income taxes, but do pay payroll taxes. Which were increased to pay for things like Medicare and Social Security. So much for "if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut", and the GOP being the party of the "common man".
Stick that in your cock and smoke it.
But the people actually running the Democratic party are much richer than the people actually running the Republican party.
Riiight. You got some figures to back that up?
Um. "Fair" would mean everyone would pay the same
Um, no, that would be very unfair. Massively unfair. Biblically unfair.
In other words, I pay $1000/year for roads and Bill Gates would pay $1000/year for roads.
Hello? Did you pay any attention to what I said origionally? I live in North Dakota. How much do I directly benefit from having a good interstate highway system in Texas, Georgia, and the rest of the south? Not much. How about Bill Gates? Last time I checked, Microsoft did business in all 50 states, and certainally benefits from having a good transportation system to ship its products. Now you could say that the employees of Microsoft also benefit, but as the average CEO makes 500 times as much as the average employee, then said CEO can pay 500 times as much.
Sure, rich people benefit from the government, but guess what? So do we.
Its the degree to which we benefit. Duh.
It's the rich people (and not the government like some people seem to think) who create jobs.
Wow, thats gotta be the best statement since Rush Limbaugh's claim that there's never been a sucessful federal program. The government doesn't create jobs? A few million veterans might have to disagree with you. Along with several hundered thousand teachers. And construction on the aforementioned highways. And so on and so forth.
And trickle down ecnomics were a proven flop. You give more money to the rich, you are just giving more money to the rich. They aren't going to turn around and make more jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. If their company will benefit from adding more jobs, then they'll add more jobs. Doing so under any other conditions can be *bad* for the company, because they'll overexpand.